Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality: I Changed My Mind

matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:00:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

Appealing to consensus is not a good process for moral thought, and moreover, it is not the practice normally used in lawmaking or the judiciary.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:09:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

So you presuppose a subjective experience of right and wrong as morality.


Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.

So morality is subjective because you define morality as what has popular vote.

Okay. And I think the sky is blue because I define the sky is something being blue. Glad we could talk about things circular in argument.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:28:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:00:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

Appealing to consensus is not a good process for moral thought, and moreover, it is not the practice normally used in lawmaking or the judiciary.

Hi Ruv, I agree with that and I might not have communicated my thoughts very well. When an idea is new to me, I usually spend some time sorting out the "kinks" before I spend much time discussing it. Personally, I find the idea of subjective morality distasteful but I'm starting to think it is reality.

Is it possible that there is an objective morality and that religion just distorts it in some ways? I know there is no way to really know but I'm still curious as to what your thoughts are on that.

If some ideas on morality are better than others, does that imply the existence of objective morality?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:34:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:09:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

So you presuppose a subjective experience of right and wrong as morality.


Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.

So morality is subjective because you define morality as what has popular vote.

Okay. And I think the sky is blue because I define the sky is something being blue. Glad we could talk about things circular in argument.

In my original post where I described Person A, B and C - who is right and how do we know? I mean that as an honest question.

I certainly have my strong opinion but so do others.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:34:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:28:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Is it possible that there is an objective morality and that religion just distorts it in some ways?
Absolutely. If human needs are broadly common then suffering has a common definition. If morality is framed as the ability to empower people while avoiding suffering, then morality has a common definition.

That definition is emergent -- meaning, as we learn more about needs and consequences, we can improve upon it. But if it is grounded in objective observation, there's no difficulty in objective falsification, meaning our understanding will constantly converge.

And yes -- anyone who wants to define morality in terms of the unobservable and unfalsifiable -- will distort that with their own subjectivity.

And that says something about the risk of letting people insist that subjective claims have authority.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 11:36:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:34:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:09:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

So you presuppose a subjective experience of right and wrong as morality.


Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.

So morality is subjective because you define morality as what has popular vote.

Okay. And I think the sky is blue because I define the sky is something being blue. Glad we could talk about things circular in argument.

In my original post where I described Person A, B and C - who is right and how do we know? I mean that as an honest question.

I certainly have my strong opinion but so do others.

Is a consensus a good way to discern an objective reality?

I don't think so. What is 'right' what is 'wrong'? Is it what advances human life? A lot of 'wrongs' have been commited for 'the greater good'.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:31:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:36:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:34:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:09:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

So you presuppose a subjective experience of right and wrong as morality.


Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.

So morality is subjective because you define morality as what has popular vote.

Okay. And I think the sky is blue because I define the sky is something being blue. Glad we could talk about things circular in argument.

In my original post where I described Person A, B and C - who is right and how do we know? I mean that as an honest question.

I certainly have my strong opinion but so do others.

Is a consensus a good way to discern an objective reality?

I don't think so. What is 'right' what is 'wrong'? Is it what advances human life? A lot of 'wrongs' have been commited for 'the greater good'.

We agree on this. What I find so surprising is that some things I find so abhorrent, huge numbers of people believe are just and moral. Many of these people might be considered "moral" in most other ways. The common thread of what pollutes morality seems to be religious dogma. I think most people would agree as long as we took their particular religion off the table.

Are there any morality "rules" that kindness and love don't cover? Most religions have lots of them and they seem to be the most problematic.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:42:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 11:34:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:28:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Is it possible that there is an objective morality and that religion just distorts it in some ways?
Absolutely. If human needs are broadly common then suffering has a common definition. If morality is framed as the ability to empower people while avoiding suffering, then morality has a common definition.

That definition is emergent -- meaning, as we learn more about needs and consequences, we can improve upon it. But if it is grounded in objective observation, there's no difficulty in objective falsification, meaning our understanding will constantly converge.

And yes -- anyone who wants to define morality in terms of the unobservable and unfalsifiable -- will distort that with their own subjectivity.

And that says something about the risk of letting people insist that subjective claims have authority.

I appreciate your insight. That was another direction of my thinking.

Ive thought that with the increasing connectivity of people across the world, it is harder for dogma to stand up to the exchange of ideas. Ive also thought that increased connectivity decreases the "us versus them" mentality leading to more empathy.
These factors would seem to lead to a convergent idea of morality.

I will continue to pursue this line of thought some more.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:23:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 12:31:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:36:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:34:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:09:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:01:49 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:46:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

Define morality?

Morality is the perception of what is right and what is wrong. I use the word perception because different groups of people have different ideas on right and wrong.

So you presuppose a subjective experience of right and wrong as morality.


Your conclusion is that "Morality wins by majority" So you presuppose that what is consensus is moral. Do you think a consensus of an entire population can still be an immoral act? What seems to win is just what has force, and even this force may not be the majority.

In my opinion, an entire population can act immorally but in the end, it is just my opinion. I believed that it was immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday but there was a whole population several thousand years ago that would disagree with me. Literally millions of people today believe that killing was an acceptable response to working on Sunday if they were to be transported back in time. This has made me rethink that maybe people have completely different ideas of morality which is the very definition of subjective morality.

Then you equivocate "majority vote" with "subjective". I see no logical inference from any premise to accept so.

If a behavior is "right" and another behavior "wrong", you could have the majority vote to do "wrong". In fact you can have those in power elect to make legal "wrong" actions, even against majority opinion.

If I believed that nobody should have ever been killed for working on Sunday or that Muslims should not kill other Muslims that want to leave Islam, does my "vote" matter? Those societies have voted on what they think is moral.

So morality is subjective because you define morality as what has popular vote.

Okay. And I think the sky is blue because I define the sky is something being blue. Glad we could talk about things circular in argument.

In my original post where I described Person A, B and C - who is right and how do we know? I mean that as an honest question.

I certainly have my strong opinion but so do others.

Is a consensus a good way to discern an objective reality?

I don't think so. What is 'right' what is 'wrong'? Is it what advances human life? A lot of 'wrongs' have been commited for 'the greater good'.

We agree on this. What I find so surprising is that some things I find so abhorrent, huge numbers of people believe are just and moral. Many of these people might be considered "moral" in most other ways. The common thread of what pollutes morality seems to be religious dogma. I think most people would agree as long as we took their particular religion off the table.

Are there any morality "rules" that kindness and love don't cover? Most religions have lots of them and they seem to be the most problematic.

I don't think it is religion. When the pharisees asked Jesus about marriage, and he replied with between a man and woman and never apart, they retorted with Moses allowed a divorce decree. Jesus said for their stubborn hearts.

I think legal code and social acceptance pollutes morality. morality takes a back seat to self-interest. Do I think that morally acceptable? certainly not.

If I had to sum up some kind of moral code I would suggest "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

But i suggest we lack an appropriate language to codify objective morals. For instance I suggest, "It is immoral to kill a peer in the same group" What's interesting is this seems to capture the loop hole used so often.. ostracize a person from the group. So when two nations go at each other in war, we say it's not murder because they are not peers in the same group. Or when a criminal is receives the death penalty they are implicitly ostracized from society.

I suggest there is objective morals because everyone commits acts, performs behaviors, that they themselves consider sinful, immoral, evil.

How is it that people do what they themselves think are wrong? I think it regardless of religion demonstrates mankind is innately sinful. naturally immoral.

If such a demonstration is true, it is only true with a comparison to a moral standard.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:09:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 2:23:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/27/2016 12:31:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:36:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:


Is a consensus a good way to discern an objective reality?

I don't think so. What is 'right' what is 'wrong'? Is it what advances human life? A lot of 'wrongs' have been commited for 'the greater good'.

We agree on this. What I find so surprising is that some things I find so abhorrent, huge numbers of people believe are just and moral. Many of these people might be considered "moral" in most other ways. The common thread of what pollutes morality seems to be religious dogma. I think most people would agree as long as we took their particular religion off the table.

Are there any morality "rules" that kindness and love don't cover? Most religions have lots of them and they seem to be the most problematic.

I don't think it is religion. When the pharisees asked Jesus about marriage, and he replied with between a man and woman and never apart, they retorted with Moses allowed a divorce decree. Jesus said for their stubborn hearts.

Regarding religion/non-religion: Personally, I find Sharia law (for example) immoral in that it attempts to remove personal freedoms that do not cause harm to others. Everyone is free to follow the tenants of sharia law even if the law is not enforced. People that want Sharia law do not want it because of any relation to their own decisions/actions; it is about controlling the decisions/actions of others around them. Likewise, Christians concern themselves greatly for what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I think legal code and social acceptance pollutes morality.
agreed
morality takes a back seat to self-interest. Do I think that morally acceptable? certainly not.

If self interest have a neutral or positive effect on others, it is acceptable. Only when it becomes a negative to others is it immoral.


If I had to sum up some kind of moral code I would suggest "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

But i suggest we lack an appropriate language to codify objective morals. For instance I suggest, "It is immoral to kill a peer in the same group" What's interesting is this seems to capture the loop hole used so often.. ostracize a person from the group. So when two nations go at each other in war, we say it's not murder because they are not peers in the same group. Or when a criminal is receives the death penalty they are implicitly ostracized from society.

I suggest there is objective morals because everyone commits acts, performs behaviors, that they themselves consider sinful, immoral, evil.

How is it that people do what they themselves think are wrong? I think it regardless of religion demonstrates mankind is innately sinful. naturally immoral.

If a man loves his neighbor as himself, what would make him immoral? Sex? Cursing? Addiction? Obesity from gluttony? This is my problem with religion - If someone isn't hurting someone else, leave them alone. Why is there so much anger and disdain for people that want to live differently? I think it is the parts of our brain that predispose us to racism that resonate with this mentality.

If such a demonstration is true, it is only true with a comparison to a moral standard.

I had come to doubt the existence of objective morality because there are many otherwise moral people that believe things such as people that leave a religion should be killed or if someone that works on sunday, they should be killed. If objective morality existed, it would seem that there should be more consensus with people that consider morality important. After having some time to think about it, I think objective morality probably exists and it is erroneous belief systems that confuses perception of morality. While I'm sure we agree on this, I'm sure we disagree on how religious dogma, in general, impacts impacts morality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:36:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 3:09:06 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 2:23:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/27/2016 12:31:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 11:36:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:


Is a consensus a good way to discern an objective reality?

I don't think so. What is 'right' what is 'wrong'? Is it what advances human life? A lot of 'wrongs' have been commited for 'the greater good'.

We agree on this. What I find so surprising is that some things I find so abhorrent, huge numbers of people believe are just and moral. Many of these people might be considered "moral" in most other ways. The common thread of what pollutes morality seems to be religious dogma. I think most people would agree as long as we took their particular religion off the table.

Are there any morality "rules" that kindness and love don't cover? Most religions have lots of them and they seem to be the most problematic.

I don't think it is religion. When the pharisees asked Jesus about marriage, and he replied with between a man and woman and never apart, they retorted with Moses allowed a divorce decree. Jesus said for their stubborn hearts.

Regarding religion/non-religion: Personally, I find Sharia law (for example) immoral in that it attempts to remove personal freedoms that do not cause harm to others. Everyone is free to follow the tenants of sharia law even if the law is not enforced. People that want Sharia law do not want it because of any relation to their own decisions/actions; it is about controlling the decisions/actions of others around them. Likewise, Christians concern themselves greatly for what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I think legal code and social acceptance pollutes morality.
agreed
morality takes a back seat to self-interest. Do I think that morally acceptable? certainly not.

If self interest have a neutral or positive effect on others, it is acceptable. Only when it becomes a negative to others is it immoral.


If I had to sum up some kind of moral code I would suggest "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

But i suggest we lack an appropriate language to codify objective morals. For instance I suggest, "It is immoral to kill a peer in the same group" What's interesting is this seems to capture the loop hole used so often.. ostracize a person from the group. So when two nations go at each other in war, we say it's not murder because they are not peers in the same group. Or when a criminal is receives the death penalty they are implicitly ostracized from society.

But I don't see why the aversion to pain is considered such a goal of moral behavior. Pain is present in working hard, but a hard days work is a moral thing. Pain is present in giving birth but sacrificing for children is a good thing. So no. I don't consider the abolishment of pain to be a standard or goal of moral behavior.

And as for doing harm to others isn't it morally superior to stop a brother from injecting morphine into their veins?


I suggest there is objective morals because everyone commits acts, performs behaviors, that they themselves consider sinful, immoral, evil.

How is it that people do what they themselves think are wrong? I think it regardless of religion demonstrates mankind is innately sinful. naturally immoral.

If a man loves his neighbor as himself, what would make him immoral? Sex? Cursing? Addiction? Obesity from gluttony? This is my problem with religion - If someone isn't hurting someone else, leave them alone. Why is there so much anger and disdain for people that want to live differently? I think it is the parts of our brain that predispose us to racism that resonate with this mentality.

If such a demonstration is true, it is only true with a comparison to a moral standard.

I had come to doubt the existence of objective morality because there are many otherwise moral people that believe things such as people that leave a religion should be killed or if someone that works on sunday, they should be killed. If objective morality existed, it would seem that there should be more consensus with people that consider morality important. After having some time to think about it, I think objective morality probably exists and it is erroneous belief systems that confuses perception of morality. While I'm sure we agree on this, I'm sure we disagree on how religious dogma, in general, impacts impacts morality.

Well here where I make a distinction between morals and ethics.

For people to live together effectively we have created a social contract called government. We enlist the might of numbers, the masses, the creation of armies to protect the collective. And at the same time enforce the social contract. that social contract is the trading of "freedoms" like the "freedom of speech" for "Rights". "Right of free speech". They are not the same thing.

The freedom of speech was granted by our creator. We have a mouth and vocal chords that mean we can say anything we can say. We are free to scream, to shout, to bless, to curse, to sing, to cry ect.. and Nothing can take away that "freedom" unless they seriously harm us.

But we trade that in for a "right of free speech" in which we say we will confine our freedom to an established domain. We agree that to live together we won't shout "fire" in a movie theater, or lie about each other, ect.. We can perform these actions because we are free to do so from our creator, but we elect for the safety of the social contract we are not "rightful" to do so.

This same distinction is elaborated on by Americans forefathers and other thinkers. The question can be posed "Is it morally acceptable to do something that is illegal?" And the resounding answer is yes.

While the Social Contract uses the Law to decide what is legal or not, The creator made us Free and our love, wisdom, strength in the creator and application to our neighbors is supposed to temper our actions so they become moral.

Notice the Social contract of government and rights is a stipulation pressed upon the freedoms of mankind. And opposite, the way our creator made us, moral actions are emergent from a free being.

In this respect government is antithesis to a moral person. It is why our forefathers urged so strongly that the individual man be given freedom to advance and mature into a righteous creation.

John Adams, ""We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Benjamin Franklin, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

So are there objective Morals, yes. But another question is can we even codify these morals? The law which is generally used to do so, is inadequate. the black and white of lettering incapable of mercy or administering wisdom. The law is not rehabilitative like love. It is not discerning like wisdom, and it has no strength but that which is stolen from the people who elect to enforce it.

So Objective Morals exist, As I said I believe they do because no one on Earth feels they have done no wrong.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:21:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 12:42:24 AM, matt8800 wrote:
Ive thought that with the increasing connectivity of people across the world, it is harder for dogma to stand up to the exchange of ideas. Ive also thought that increased connectivity decreases the "us versus them" mentality leading to more empathy.
These factors would seem to lead to a convergent idea of morality.
I will continue to pursue this line of thought some more.
I look forward to hearing more, Matt.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 5:37:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Let us examine:

From the physical emerges the "What we CAN do".

The moral we define as what we SHOULD do, so from where does the should emerge?

The "could" is satisfied or contingent upon the physical constraints of a system.

How is the "should" satisfied or contingent upon what constraints?

The "should" is constrained by 1. what we "Could" do. and 2. by a system of selection criteria.

Is the physical emerging "Could" do objective? Let's agree yes. This leaves the question is the selection criteria objective?

What is required for such a component or system to be objective? Independent?

Okay well independent is interesting in that we are talking about human behavior and choice, so how can we be independent enough to reject human considerations and thought. It makes no sense to so. Independent of an individual's thought but still considerate of others?

What else would make the selection criteria objective? emergent from a reality divorce of human bias?

While I don't know what such an emergence would look like, I think the addition of being divorced of human bias would imply that objective morality would extend across all entities capable of making "Should" selection of action. I'm willing to go there.

I'ld like to hear your thinking on the questions posed.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:57:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.
The whole premise of your argument is flawed. The Sabbath is an arbitrary holiday. It was initiated by the same people the Jews who thought God had a fetish for foreskins. They were the same people who followed prophets and their prophesies and did little to avoid its devastating fulfillment. The same people who stuck around with Moses wandering around in the desert for 40 years when the journey should have taken 3 months tops, and yet could not put up with Jesus their messiah for more than three years.

Why you would debate the controversial beliefs of a good fearing people who repeated displeased their God who punished them throughout their history almost to the point of extinction. The Jews were an enigma, their lives, beliefs,values and actions were in total contradiction to every objective standard. That Christians/Gentiles adopted much of their religious beliefs is an absurdity that defies moral objectivity.

Jesus was a Jew who was crucified for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. Jesus was not crucified for quoting their scriptures (OT) , but for believing he was fulfilling them. He exposed tbe hypocracisy of the Jews by calling them to believe the messiah they were so eagerly waiting for was finally here in him just as it was prophesied. He was shocked by their incredulity, just as they were shocked he would actually believe all that nonsense and crucified him.

Not surprisingly Europe is less of a Christian country after Hitler exterminated the Jews. That was the first attempt to reject Jewish influence and their religion in its many forms Christianity being one of the many.. Germany is the most progressive of all European countries.

Should the example be followed by other countries drowning from Christian beliefs,controversies, contradiction and pure rubbish when the Jew (Jesus) who invented it was long rejected and crucified by the very people he hoped to convert.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:42:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

You're not accepting messages, Jerry. I know, I tried to make you aware of this...

http://www.debate.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

Says who? There is no verse that clarifies that so you are just making that up.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

This one law is just one out of many unjust laws in the Bible. I just picked this one as an example. I could pick many more. Similarly, I picked out the law of killing a Muslim for not wanting to be a Muslim as just one law as an example.

The point is that you feel it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday, a Muslim feels its moral to kill someone that doesn't want to be a Muslim and I disagree with both of you. What I was surprised at is when we broke it down and analyzed it, you still felt it was perfectly acceptable. This is what made me start thinking that if moralities can differ so greatly, objective morality comes into question. If objective morality is in question, I admit my whole argument was flawed because I am not in a position to claim any religion is immoral. Anything can be justified, especially in the name of religion.

I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:58:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 5:37:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Let us examine:

From the physical emerges the "What we CAN do".

The moral we define as what we SHOULD do, so from where does the should emerge?

The "could" is satisfied or contingent upon the physical constraints of a system.

How is the "should" satisfied or contingent upon what constraints?

The "should" is constrained by 1. what we "Could" do. and 2. by a system of selection criteria.

Is the physical emerging "Could" do objective? Let's agree yes. This leaves the question is the selection criteria objective?

What is required for such a component or system to be objective? Independent?

Okay well independent is interesting in that we are talking about human behavior and choice, so how can we be independent enough to reject human considerations and thought. It makes no sense to so. Independent of an individual's thought but still considerate of others?

What else would make the selection criteria objective? emergent from a reality divorce of human bias?

While I don't know what such an emergence would look like, I think the addition of being divorced of human bias would imply that objective morality would extend across all entities capable of making "Should" selection of action. I'm willing to go there.

I'ld like to hear your thinking on the questions posed.

Then how do I know what you "should" do unless you have already agreed to what you should do. It is a consensus of the ruling group, which could be a majority, or a monarchy. What is agreed to within the agreed is the set of morals at hand. What is moral in western culture may not be moral in middle eastern culture. How hard is that to understand? What is agreed to in the simple repair of a car becomes a set of morals. What is agreed to within a household invokes morals. But that set of rules doesn"t apply to another household. I"m not Russian therefore I am not bond to Russian law or set of morals, unless I am in their territory in which case by being there I by default agree to obey their law. Nor is a Russian bond to the laws of any other country, unless he comes into agreement with those countries. There is no universal agreement, what Christians get confused with is God being who He is they think that everyone is in agreement with Him. But the same people that say they read the bible don"t see that the Lord God of Israel comes into agreement with whom He choices. Not the whole world, yet, and only those who come into agreement, (covenant) are bond to whatever that agreement is. Therefore, even with the God of Israel morals are relative to those in the agreement (covenant). Even God keeps His agreements with those He is in agreement with, no one else. He"s not obligated to be nice to those who are not in agreement with. And in the case of Israel what He agreed to do to them should they turn from Him He also kept.

No agreement, no morals, and no one is bond to what they "should" do. And could do isn"t really addressed unless there is more than one person that is concerned for the same thing.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 2:42:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

You're not accepting messages, Jerry. I know, I tried to make you aware of this...

http://www.debate.org...

Did you try to PM me? I don't understand why that wouldn't be working. I'll have to look into it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:21:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 4:04:58 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 2:42:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

You're not accepting messages, Jerry. I know, I tried to make you aware of this...

http://www.debate.org...

Did you try to PM me? I don't understand why that wouldn't be working. I'll have to look into it.

Simple, it says you are not accepting messages. Are you going to address your claims in that thread?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:22:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

Says who? There is no verse that clarifies that so you are just making that up.

Basically, the Lord declared that Sabbath observance would be a characteristic of his people (see Exodus 31:13). Rewards of obeying the Sabbath would be rest, time with friends/family, blessing from God, and etc...Obeying the Sabbath means that you get to do/receive all of these things. So when someone deliberately disobeyed the law (like the man gathering the sticks), they didn't want anything from God and were committing treason.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

This one law is just one out of many unjust laws in the Bible. I just picked this one as an example. I could pick many more. Similarly, I picked out the law of killing a Muslim for not wanting to be a Muslim as just one law as an example.

I would love to discuss those other laws with you. But I would like to clear the one about the Sabbath first. Can you see why the law isn't immoral? As for the Muslims, I would have to let them speak for themselves on that issue. But I do agree that there is some dark stuff in the Qur'an.

The point is that you feel it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday, a Muslim feels its moral to kill someone that doesn't want to be a Muslim and I disagree with both of you. What I was surprised at is when we broke it down and analyzed it, you still felt it was perfectly acceptable. This is what made me start thinking that if moralities can differ so greatly, objective morality comes into question. If objective morality is in question, I admit my whole argument was flawed because I am not in a position to claim any religion is immoral. Anything can be justified, especially in the name of religion.

You still don't get it. People weren't killing for working on Saturday. You did not break down the law in our debate. You only read the one verse and got to some crazy conclusions based off of it. God allowed work if it was necessary and loved his people very much. He has speak all of time working with humans. He was there during the enslavement of Egyptians, he was there for Hagar (Genesis 21:10) when she needed help. God is always with us. So you have to understand that the Sabbath day benefited the people in many ways and breaking the law meant to not accept the gifts of God (including life). This is one of the reasons people get sent to Hell. They reject God and at the same time they reject his gift of life.

I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.

I would agree with you but you keep repeating that people were killed for working on Sunday (actually Saturday by the way). But this just isn't true. Can you please try to understand?
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:29:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 4:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/27/2016 4:04:58 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 2:42:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I used to lean on the side of suspecting objective morality did exist. Ironically, a Christian showed me the idea of objective morality is flawed. Below is how I came to the conclusion.

I instigated a debate "The Biblical God is Immoral" (http://www.debate.org...). The foundation of my argument centered around the verse that anyone that works on the Sabbath should be executed. I thought this argument would be a lay-down because if I were transported 3000 years in the past to the region of the Jewish tribes, discovered my neighbor gathering wood to warm his family, the law of my religion would compel me to inform a religious authority so that he should be executed.

I believed that if it were explained what this law actually meant to the people of the time and that people were actually executed, no moral person could agree with it. I was wrong. I suspect that my opponent lives his life according to his moral framework for the most part and is most likely to be considered moral to the people that know him. Many people that know me would probably say that I am a "moral" person also in how I treat other people yet we did not agree on the subject of morality.

I lost the debate because the burden of proof fell on me. It was NOT obvious, as I assumed it would be, that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Actually, 3000 years ago it was a moral imperative to kill people for working on Sunday to satiate their religious authority.

Consider the following:

Person A believes that it is immoral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Person B believes that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday and has reasons for believing such.

Let"s add a third person -

Person C believes that members of his religion should be killed if they desire to disassociate from that religion (Islam) and has reasons for believing such.

They all belong to communities that consider their respective beliefs moral. Person B and C claim the same reason for the moral authority as special revelation from their God. Who has authority to tell each one they are wrong?

Who is right? Each persons' community would say their respective person is right. The only thing one needs to justify something is a) a reason to believe it is right and b) consensus. Morality wins by majority vote therefore morality is subjective.

I think these examples also illustrate the impact religion has on morality.

I can't tell you how discouraged I am to see you keep ranting about this law when it was clearly explained to you in our debate. You only focused on the one verse and didn't know anything about what the law actually meant to the people of the time period. Again, people could do things on the Sabbath if it was necessary or if they were doing acts of goodness and etc...

The only people that were put to death were people that absolutely hated God and broke the law as an act of treason. And by the way, people are killed in our society for committing treason as well.

You have to keep in mind that God is very fair. He always gives people warnings. The Egyptians had 400 years to free the slaves, the Canaanites had 400 years to stop sacrificing children, the people in Noah's time were given 120 yrs (with a preacher) to repent, and God's people were warned about breaking his law. The only time I can think of in which someone was put to death for violating the Sabbath was when the person gathering sticks did it as soon as the law was given. The treason was so obvious there.

As for objective morality, if you truly believe it is subjective, then you could never claim that God was immoral. That said, I really don't see how you would think that God is immoral after all of this. After all, we are talking about the God who commanded people to love their neighbor as themselves. We are talking about the same God that freed thousands of slaves. We are talking about the God who made the ten commandments and the God who came as a man and died for humanity. We are talking about the God who literally wrote the objective moral law on every persons heart. Every action God took in the Bible was to get humanity to get back on track when he didn't owe us a thing. So I would encourage you to rethink your position.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I think this is a very important issue.

You're not accepting messages, Jerry. I know, I tried to make you aware of this...

http://www.debate.org...

Did you try to PM me? I don't understand why that wouldn't be working. I'll have to look into it.

Simple, it says you are not accepting messages. Are you going to address your claims in that thread?

Thanks for pointing out the problem with my profile. I just fixed it so that all people can send me messages. I will take a look at the thread.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:50:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 5:37:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:56:28 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Let us examine:

From the physical emerges the "What we CAN do".

The moral we define as what we SHOULD do, so from where does the should emerge?

The "could" is satisfied or contingent upon the physical constraints of a system.

How is the "should" satisfied or contingent upon what constraints?

The "should" is constrained by 1. what we "Could" do. and 2. by a system of selection criteria.

Is the physical emerging "Could" do objective? Let's agree yes. This leaves the question is the selection criteria objective?

What is required for such a component or system to be objective? Independent?

Okay well independent is interesting in that we are talking about human behavior and choice, so how can we be independent enough to reject human considerations and thought. It makes no sense to so. Independent of an individual's thought but still considerate of others?

What else would make the selection criteria objective? emergent from a reality divorce of human bias?

While I don't know what such an emergence would look like, I think the addition of being divorced of human bias would imply that objective morality would extend across all entities capable of making "Should" selection of action. I'm willing to go there.

I'ld like to hear your thinking on the questions posed.

I like how Ruv put it - "If human needs are broadly common then suffering has a common definition. If morality is framed as the ability to empower people while avoiding suffering, then morality has a common definition."

While the human race still has a long way to go, our ideas of morality are slowly converging. Acts such as raping and pillaging the neighboring village human sacrifice are less prevalent despite the fact that many of the religions have historically applauded that.

Where are our moralities converging to? Could that ideal point be referred to as objective morality? After thinking about it, I think it could.

Does religion encourage biases in determining what empowers people while avoiding suffering of others? Do we need religion to make us want to be kind to others or instruct us on what kindness means? Do you need religion to make you want to help someone in need if it is to your own detriment?

Religion trips me up on the idea of objective morality more than anything else because there are so many things that don't make sense when analyzed. What I am thinking now is that widely accepted hurtful religious laws are not evidence of subjective morality; religion simply distorts the correct perception of objective morality.

I think we can both think of many examples of how religion divides and hurts people. Some people think this is because of human failing. While much of that may be true, I think religion is also a contributor.

Some people think that humans are inherently bad. I used to have a more dim view of the human race than I do now. I remember one day years ago seeing a car accident outside my office window. What I noticed is how complete strangers were so distressed about the well being of someone they did not know. I realized that day that I was not giving the human race enough credit. I think our sensitivity to evil distorts our perception of the balance of good and evil. I think the majority of people desire to love and be loved and it has nothing to do with religion.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 5:16:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:


I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.

I would agree with you but you keep repeating that people were killed for working on Sunday (actually Saturday by the way). But this just isn't true. Can you please try to understand?

I have read the bible and that is not what I see. Should we pick verses that applaud human and animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, killing someone for being homosexual, etc instead? Here is a short list of what could be a very long list of examples of why I think the bible is immoral - http://commonsenseatheism.com...

The point is, if you think those examples are moral then we have very different ideas on morality. You are just as sure that your religion is completely moral just like a Muslim thinks their religion is completely moral or why an Incan would similarly justify human sacrifice. There is nothing that is going to change their mind.

My points are twofold:

1. The justification for evil in religions is that god wants it therefore is not evil. This is my subjective idea of evil, of course. Killing or abusing people for crimes that do not hurt other people does not fit within my personal moral framework.
2. If so many people can disagree so greatly on such issues, objective morality can come into question. I do like how Ruv framed objective morality however as that makes sense to me.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 5:16:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:


I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.

I would agree with you but you keep repeating that people were killed for working on Sunday (actually Saturday by the way). But this just isn't true. Can you please try to understand?

I have read the bible and that is not what I see. Should we pick verses that applaud human and animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, killing someone for being homosexual, etc instead? Here is a short list of what could be a very long list of examples of why I think the bible is immoral - http://commonsenseatheism.com...

I just explained what the Bible says in full about the Sabbath and in response you ignore what the Bible says on the matter. What do you mean that what I said is not something you see in the Bible. I literally just showed you proof of what i was talking about. Why continue to say false things about the Bible? As for other verses, feel free to pick one and we can talk about that as well. I am not going to go through each of the events your atheist site mentioned.

The point is, if you think those examples are moral then we have very different ideas on morality. You are just as sure that your religion is completely moral just like a Muslim thinks their religion is completely moral or why an Incan would similarly justify human sacrifice. There is nothing that is going to change their mind.

Most of the things you mentioned had to do with punishing sin. It didn't really have anything to do with morality. Nothing in the Bible supports human sacrifice, Genocide, and slavery. The parts about animal sacrifice was to show that the wages of sin was death. Homosexuals were killed for taking part in a horrible sin. Not because God hated them.

My points are twofold:

1. The justification for evil in religions is that god wants it therefore is not evil. This is my subjective idea of evil, of course. Killing or abusing people for crimes that do not hurt other people does not fit within my personal moral framework.

That is the case with many religions. The difference with Christianity is that the very nature of God is good/perfect and therefore he objectively knows what is good. So it has nothing to do with want he wants to be good/bad.

2. If so many people can disagree so greatly on such issues, objective morality can come into question. I do like how Ruv framed objective morality however as that makes sense to me.

You are talking about absolute morality. Objective morality just has to do with the fact that a standard of right/wrong exists. But all people do know the basic moral principles.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 6:12:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 5:33:17 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 5:16:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:


I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.

I would agree with you but you keep repeating that people were killed for working on Sunday (actually Saturday by the way). But this just isn't true. Can you please try to understand?

I have read the bible and that is not what I see. Should we pick verses that applaud human and animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, killing someone for being homosexual, etc instead? Here is a short list of what could be a very long list of examples of why I think the bible is immoral - http://commonsenseatheism.com...

I just explained what the Bible says in full about the Sabbath and in response you ignore what the Bible says on the matter. What do you mean that what I said is not something you see in the Bible. I literally just showed you proof of what i was talking about. Why continue to say false things about the Bible? As for other verses, feel free to pick one and we can talk about that as well. I am not going to go through each of the events your atheist site mentioned.

I am simply stating that the bible says people that work on the Sabbath should be killed. Numbers 15:32-36 gives a specific example where that happened. Your response is that it is justified and you provide reasoning. I disagree that it was ever justified and don't agree with your reasoning. You say it is moral because of the reasons you cite. I say it is immoral regardless of the reasons therefore we have different ideas of morality.

The point is, if you think those examples are moral then we have very different ideas on morality. You are just as sure that your religion is completely moral just like a Muslim thinks their religion is completely moral or why an Incan would similarly justify human sacrifice. There is nothing that is going to change their mind.

Most of the things you mentioned had to do with punishing sin. It didn't really have anything to do with morality. Nothing in the Bible supports human sacrifice, Genocide, and slavery. The parts about animal sacrifice was to show that the wages of sin was death. Homosexuals were killed for taking part in a horrible sin. Not because God hated them.

Many people that have read the bible disagree with your assertion that it does not support human sacrifice, genocide and slavery. I think sacrificing animals is barbaric and most other people do also. I do not believe homosexuality is a "sin" nor do I think they should be killed for it, which obviously we disagree on. We have a very different moral framework. Many people around the world have drastically different ideas of what is moral and these are good examples.

My points are twofold:

1. The justification for evil in religions is that god wants it therefore is not evil. This is my subjective idea of evil, of course. Killing or abusing people for crimes that do not hurt other people does not fit within my personal moral framework.

That is the case with many religions. The difference with Christianity is that the very nature of God is good/perfect and therefore he objectively knows what is good. So it has nothing to do with want he wants to be good/bad.

This exemplifies what I think is so scary about religion. Everyone thinks their religion is the one true religion therefore anything taught by that religion is deemed good. If it is so obvious why Christianity is the only correct religion, haven't you ever wondered why more Muslims aren't converting? Blaming it on Satan is not an acceptable reason.

2. If so many people can disagree so greatly on such issues, objective morality can come into question. I do like how Ruv framed objective morality however as that makes sense to me.

You are talking about absolute morality. Objective morality just has to do with the fact that a standard of right/wrong exists. But all people do know the basic moral principles.

Observation of what goes on in the world would indicate that religious dogma is much stronger than hardwired moral principals.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 6:29:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 6:12:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 5:33:17 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 5:16:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 3:34:40 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 11:48:00 AM, Jerry947 wrote:


I am not saying I am amoral. I'm saying that this illustrates how getting morality from an outside source can be dangerous.

I would agree with you but you keep repeating that people were killed for working on Sunday (actually Saturday by the way). But this just isn't true. Can you please try to understand?

I have read the bible and that is not what I see. Should we pick verses that applaud human and animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, killing someone for being homosexual, etc instead? Here is a short list of what could be a very long list of examples of why I think the bible is immoral - http://commonsenseatheism.com...

I just explained what the Bible says in full about the Sabbath and in response you ignore what the Bible says on the matter. What do you mean that what I said is not something you see in the Bible. I literally just showed you proof of what i was talking about. Why continue to say false things about the Bible? As for other verses, feel free to pick one and we can talk about that as well. I am not going to go through each of the events your atheist site mentioned.

I am simply stating that the bible says people that work on the Sabbath should be killed. Numbers 15:32-36 gives a specific example where that happened. Your response is that it is justified and you provide reasoning. I disagree that it was ever justified and don't agree with your reasoning. You say it is moral because of the reasons you cite. I say it is immoral regardless of the reasons therefore we have different ideas of morality.

No, we have the same idea about morality. You agree with me that murder is wrong. The problem here is that you see the law as murdering people and I don't. I see it as valid killing since that is how the Bible portrays it. Please explain why someone who rejects all things good, life, and God (breaking the Sabbath means to reject these things) should not get the death penalty?

The point is, if you think those examples are moral then we have very different ideas on morality. You are just as sure that your religion is completely moral just like a Muslim thinks their religion is completely moral or why an Incan would similarly justify human sacrifice. There is nothing that is going to change their mind.

Most of the things you mentioned had to do with punishing sin. It didn't really have anything to do with morality. Nothing in the Bible supports human sacrifice, Genocide, and slavery. The parts about animal sacrifice was to show that the wages of sin was death. Homosexuals were killed for taking part in a horrible sin. Not because God hated them.

Many people that have read the bible disagree with your assertion that it does not support human sacrifice, genocide and slavery. I think sacrificing animals is barbaric and most other people do also. I do not believe homosexuality is a "sin" nor do I think they should be killed for it, which obviously we disagree on. We have a very different moral framework. Many people around the world have drastically different ideas of what is moral and these are good examples.

Atheist Bible scholars are the ones who assert that the Bible supports those things. But the reason why God commanded a culture to be killed was because those cultures were sacrificing humans. So no person who has read the Bible would ever claim that that the Bible supports human sacrifice. As for animal death, that happened because of human's sin. I am not surprised that you don't see homosexuality as a sin. We both agree on the same moral principle that treating people well is good and we both agree that loving people is good. The difference is how we use those moral principles. I see homosexuality as violating God's design and you see it as two men loving each other.

My points are twofold:

1. The justification for evil in religions is that god wants it therefore is not evil. This is my subjective idea of evil, of course. Killing or abusing people for crimes that do not hurt other people does not fit within my personal moral framework.

That is the case with many religions. The difference with Christianity is that the very nature of God is good/perfect and therefore he objectively knows what is good. So it has nothing to do with want he wants to be good/bad.

This exemplifies what I think is so scary about religion. Everyone thinks their religion is the one true religion therefore anything taught by that religion is deemed good. If it is so obvious why Christianity is the only correct religion, haven't you ever wondered why more Muslims aren't converting? Blaming it on Satan is not an acceptable reason.

Muslims do convert to Christianity so I have no idea what you are talking about.

2. If so many people can disagree so greatly on such issues, objective morality can come into question. I do like how Ruv framed objective morality however as that makes sense to me.

You are talking about absolute morality. Objective morality just has to do with the fact that a standard of right/wrong exists. But all people do know the basic moral principles.

Observation of what goes on in the world would indicate that religious dogma is much stronger than hardwired moral principals.