Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Richard argues that morality is OBJECTIVE because it is based on defined principles of justice. I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind that Richard is INTENTIONALLY being deceptive here. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE *DISAGREE* ON WHAT IS JUST!!! In other words, ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust. And not only that, even if the huge majority of humans agreed that justice should be defined as x, that's STILL a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of what should be deemed as just! So not only is Richard and Rose ARBITRARILY assigning a special ontological status to humans, but to human reasoning as well ...
    The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust." On the contrary, justice is, by definition, an objective concept. That's why it's represented by a pair of scales, which objectively measure the objective weight of objects. Here's how I explained it in my article Morality is Objective, like a Pair of Scales.

    What determines if something is just or unjust? The answer flows immediately from the definition of the word. Here are some representative samples from various dictionaries on the net:

    JUST (adj)

    1. Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
    2. Done or made according to principle; equitable
    3. Conforming to high moral standards; honest
    4. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
    5. Fair or impartial in action or judgment

    Justice is grounded in reason, rationality, truth, and fairness. For a judgment to be just it must correspond to reality which is why it is objective (as opposed to subjective). Justice, fairness, and equality all lie at the root of our moral intuitions. Indeed, the word iniquity is based on the Latin root iniquitas which literally denotes unequalness, unevenness, injustice. Something is just and moral if it is equitable, fair, reasonable, impartial. It is an objective property no different than the objective fact that two authentic coins of the same denomination have the same weight. That is why Lady Justice, an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems, is pictured with a scale. Nothing is more objective than a scale. She wears a blindfold because justice must be impartial and objective, which means she ignores any factors not specifically relevant to the thing being judged (weighed, in the metaphor of the scales).

    Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective. It is taught to children throughout the world in some form of the Golden Rule which tells us how to tap into our moral intuitions by putting ourselves in the place of the other. This helps us be impartial and fair and promotes mercy, compassion, kindness, and empathy. The Golden Rule stands “in light of its own reason” as explained by Professor R. M. MacIver in his article The Deep Beauty of the Golden Rule (provided online by Google Books):
    Do to others as you would have others do to you. This is the only rule that stands by itself in the light of its own reason, the only rule that can stand by itself in the naked, warring universe, in the face of the contending values of men and groups.
    Rationality and the Golden Rule are the foundation of morality as explained in my articles The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality and The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. See also my wife’s article, Justice: The Root of Morality, on her blog GodAndButterfly.net.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Let's say there was an advanced civilization that was able to create entire galaxies and they viewed humans as primitive ants. Under Richard's view, why would it be OBJECTIVELY wrong for them to get rid of us??? ...
    My moral theory is based on the scientific definition of objectivity. It is founded on UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES that apply to all rational, self-aware beings. I explain this in detail in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. Therefore, in as much as the "advanced civilization" that you hypothesize would consist of rational self-aware beings, they would recognize that humans also are rational self-aware beings and so it would be objectively immoral to wipe us out.

    It would be very interesting if you would try to articulate how God serves as a foundation of morality in light of Euthyphro. And before you try to say that objective morality is based on "God's nature" take a look at my refutation of that idea in my article Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And the whole thing about assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings is highly problematic under nontheism. That would mean people with mental handicaps are BY DEFINITION less valuable than people who have a more acute sense of awareness.
    My theory is not based on the idea of "assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings." That's an entirely fallacious approach to morality in my estimation. Value is grounded love, which is innate to all rational self-aware beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Remember, if OBJECTIVE morality is inconsistent with nontheism, then Richard and Rose are essentially out of a job. Their bread and butter is to rant and rave about biblical morality. But if morality is ultimately subjective under nontheism, then all moral views would simply be a matter of personal taste.
    Not true. Morality is objective by its very nature. It is the theistic attempt to ground it God that makes it subjective.

    It's great that you are trying to deal with this topic in a rational fashion. Maybe we'll finally be able to make some progress understanding each other.

    Shine on!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    "The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust"

    I'm saying that under nontheism, ALL moral actions are nothing more than SUBJECTIVE interpretations of what should fall under the category of "Just" and "Unjust". No action can be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral under that scenario. All you're doing is saying x is objectively good, but you can LITERALLY define x to be anything you want. Under a theistic moral system, our natural moral sense is OBJECTIVE because it is derived from the very nature of the source of all being. God, as the very default state of being, has the OBJECTIVE authority to decree how you should function morally. And the ONLY moral system that God can decree is that which is in accordance with his nature (just as the only system of mathematics he can utilize in all creation is that which is in accordance with his nature). Any deviation from the moral OR mathematical nature of God is OBJECTIVELY wrong ...

    And given nontheism, why should we believe that there IS such a thing as objective right/wrong AND that our innate moral sense would actually CORRESPOND with it??? That is a theistic account of moral truth in itself.


    "Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective"

    Really? So tell me, is it RATIONAL for me to run into a burning building to save a child and risk losing my life??? How is that RATIONAL under nontheism??? The idea of objective morality is IRRATIONAL under nontheism. Altruism is IRRATIONAL if it involves any potential harm to me or my family. Under theism, altruism is RATIONAL because it coheres with the OBJECTIVE moral nature of God, from whom our innate moral sense is derived. Whenever we don't adhere to our innate moral sense, we are failing to BE what we were CREATED to be. And every creation has to justify its very existence by BEING what it was created to be.


    "In as much as the "advanced civilization" that you hypothesize would consist of rational self-aware beings, they would recognize that humans also are rational self-aware beings and so it would be objectively immoral to wipe us out"

    Not if those self-aware beings were the greatest polluters of the biosphere. And not if those self-aware beings, with a documented history of warfare, had the potential to blow the entire biosphere to smithereens with a nuclear arsenal that could go off at any moment.


    "My theory is not based on the idea of "assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings""

    So WHY isn't it morally superior to preserve the biosphere by killing off the number one polluters of the biosphere (and the only known beings who will even kill for the sake of killing)??? Where's the rationale for that? You're assigning SUBJECTIVE value to human beings simply because you are a human being. There's no way in hell that you can get an OBJECTIVELY superior value of humans over ants in a nontheistic moral theory. Under a theistic moral system, man is OBJECTIVELY more valuable than ants by his very ontology (regardless of his moral deviations).

    The bottom line is this: You can't assign OBJECTIVITY to a SUBJECTIVE goal. ALL goals are ultimately SUBJECTIVE under nontheism.


    SHALOMness

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    "I don't know why I'm wasting my time"

    I don't know why you actually think you've explained anything. Your first claim is a fact, but you followed it with a SUBJECTIVE assertion. You said ...

    "All people share the quality of being human"

    THAT is a fact.

    "All people are entitled to equal human rights"

    THAT is a SUBJECTIVE assertion. How do you get "All people are OBJECTIVELY entitled to equal human rights" from the specific fact that all people are human??? Matter fact, let's take your radical atheism up a notch ...

    Given that devout Christians oppose the right of women to perform child sacrifice (abortion), the right of sodomites to marry and even teach their own children to follow the moral guidelines in the bible (which you claim is poison), WHY shouldn't devout Christians be rounded up and locked up??? Isn't that the RATIONAL thing to do???

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "I don't know why I'm wasting my time"

    I don't know why you actually think you've explained anything. Your first claim is a fact, but you followed it with a SUBJECTIVE assertion. You said ...

    "All people share the quality of being human"

    THAT is a fact.

    "All people are entitled to equal human rights"

    THAT is a SUBJECTIVE assertion. How do you get "All people are OBJECTIVELY entitled to equal human rights" from the specific fact that all people are human??? Matter fact, let's take your radical atheism up a notch ...
    A person is entitled to human rights, because they are human ... doesn't get any simpler than that.

    Human rights are the rights afforded humans and anyone who is human is entitled to human rights!

    All one needs to be entitled to human rights, is to be human!

    The fact that all people are human, entitles them to human rights, just like the Declaration of Human Rights states!




    Article 1.


    • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2.


    • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3.


    • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4.


    • No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.




    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Given that devout Christians oppose the right of women to perform child sacrifice (abortion), the right of sodomites to marry and even teach their own children to follow the moral guidelines in the bible (which you claim is poison), WHY shouldn't devout Christians be rounded up and locked up??? Isn't that the RATIONAL thing to do???
    Voicing ones opposition to the human rights of others, is far different than forcing your beliefs onto others. Devout Christians can voice their bigoted opinions about other people all they want, but in a free society they cannot deny others equal human rights, like the Bible teaches. That is why we have separation of church and state in this country, to keep religious fanatics from imposing their fundamentalists beliefs on others.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust"

    I'm saying that under nontheism, ALL moral actions are nothing more than SUBJECTIVE interpretations of what should fall under the category of "Just" and "Unjust". No action can be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral under that scenario. All you're doing is saying x is objectively good, but you can LITERALLY define x to be anything you want.
    Good morning Gambini!

    Your assertion that I am "saying x is objectively good" is false. My moral theory is not based on the idea of the existence of an "objective good." I have not used that phrase in any of the articles I have written on the subject. Your argument has nothing to do with anything I have written. It is a textbook example of a straw man misrepresentation of my theory. If you want to refute my moral theory, you first must read and understand it, and then show that SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN is false or unsupported. You have not done that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Under a theistic moral system, our natural moral sense is OBJECTIVE because it is derived from the very nature of the source of all being. God, as the very default state of being, has the OBJECTIVE authority to decree how you should function morally. And the ONLY moral system that God can decree is that which is in accordance with his nature (just as the only system of mathematics he can utilize in all creation is that which is in accordance with his nature). Any deviation from the moral OR mathematical nature of God is OBJECTIVELY wrong ...
    Again, you demonstrate that you have not read and/or understood my argument. My moral theory is based upon the concept of INTEGRITY which is the fundamental nature of what it means for anything TO BE. It is analogous to the Law of Identity: A is A. Therefore, my moral theory is universal, fundamentally ontological and objective, and applies to all rational beings.

    Morality is objective by its very nature. Justice is like a pair of scales. It makes no sense to say that scales would fail to work if there were not some "objective authority" to decree how they respond to the weights placed on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And given nontheism, why should we believe that there IS such a thing as objective right/wrong AND that our innate moral sense would actually CORRESPOND with it??? That is a theistic account of moral truth in itself.
    Objectivity is a philosophical and scientific concept. It refers to the real world. It does not entail any reference to any metaphysical speculative "god" that can not be objectively demonstrated to exist. It seems quite ironic and self-contradictory that you think your subjective idea about God is the foundation of objective reality.

    Why should we believe that there is an objective right/wrong? For the same reason we believe that there is an objective right/wrong answer to the question "What is 2 + 2?".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective"

    Really? So tell me, is it RATIONAL for me to run into a burning building to save a child and risk losing my life??? How is that RATIONAL under nontheism??? The idea of objective morality is IRRATIONAL under nontheism. Altruism is IRRATIONAL if it involves any potential harm to me or my family. Under theism, altruism is RATIONAL because it coheres with the OBJECTIVE moral nature of God, from whom our innate moral sense is derived.
    Altruism is a choice one makes out of their love for another. It has nothing to do with morality per se. No one is morally obligated to sacrifice themselves for another.

    Your assertion that our "innate moral sense" is derived from God has no foundation in logic or facts. It is mere assertion which you have not justified. My moral theory explains the origin of our objective morality without any appeal to God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Whenever we don't adhere to our innate moral sense, we are failing to BE what we were CREATED to be. And every creation has to justify its very existence by BEING what it was created to be.
    Your comment is curiously close to the ontological foundation of my theory, which is INTEGRITY. The only difference is that integrity is not dependent upon the concept of someone being told what to be by someone else. On the contrary, real integrity comes from one's own heart and mind, independent of any "other."

    Integrity is the foundation of my moral theory. What does it mean for something "to be"? It must have integrity - A must be A. It is no mere coincidence that that word has both a moral and an ontological meaning. To be immoral is to be corrupt, which refers to the disintegration of the integrity of self. This is the essence of my assertion that religion tends to corrupt (disintegrate) the minds and morals of believers. It is a demonstrable fact, as documented in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem in which I show that his attempt to defend his beliefs literally DISINTEGRATED his mind and his morals. I have found this true in every case of every Christian apologist I have ever reviewed. William Lane Craig is a particularly relevant example since he attempted to justify his "divine command" theory of morality by literally DISINTEGRATING the innate INTEGRITY of moral epistemology and moral ontology. I explained this in my article The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality.

    Great chatting!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •