I had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post. Most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers. Instead of dealing with them, I have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Are morals relative or are they absolute? There are just two options.If you believe that some things are personal and some things are absolute, that puts you in an absolutist world view. So it's true to say that most of you hold to some absolute truths. Most of you said that there are some moral rules that exist outside of your own opinions. Let me ask you......
Some of you believe that some moral absolutes exist. Though there may be some things that are individual moral calls, some things aren't, right? You have admitted that some moral absolutes (rules) exist, yet you cannot see or touch this rule, nor will any of your five senses reveal it to you. What kind of thing is it?
You of the agnostic, unbelieving variety said that you believe that something exists somewhere in a realm which you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. You believe something exists that you can't prove empirically. This is the very same argument against those who believe in God as a basis for saying "there is no proof of God".
You don't realize that you believe in a lot of things that you can't test in that way, that aren't evident to you. But just because you can't sense it by the five senses doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for you to believe that such a rule exists. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses.
If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, steal or hurt others then that rule applies to everyone. This is a moral absolute! You have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means.
Either way you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you. You've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. There are a whole bunch of other beliefs are bundled with that computer!.
For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things, moral laws, certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then! For those that are agnostic or atheistic you have a ‘argument that is suicidal’. It disproves itself!
Now, here are some more questions: Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from? Who made this rule up and why should it apply to everyone? Apply that to our physical reality. Where did it come from? Where do our very mental processes come from and why should we even be alive, much less self-aware?
You are faced with limited options and you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you contend that we are the result of random chance, that we appeared out of nothing or were formed by accident, then you reject one option. You are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.
When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense? Think for a moment about a moral absolute. Where did it come from? Who established the principle? If it just happened into existence, then one could ask, "how is it that an arbitrary thing like a moral rule could have any moral force?"
If it is an accident, if it just comes from nowhere, why would it have any moral force on me (part of your argument is that a moral rule does have moral force)? If it happened by accident then how does an accidental thing have moral force?
Now the third option is that it could be that the moral law was made by a God who lives in eternity. Those are your options. If it doesn't make sense that the moral rule just came into existence and if it doesn't make sense that the moral principle formed itself, if it seems that the moral thing exists and has moral force on our behavior, then it seems to me the most reasonable option is that God made that moral rule and so that moral rule is a rule of God! When you break the moral rule, you offend the Creator Who made the rule!
You can’t sit on the fence on this one. You've got to believe something. If you refuse to believe that God made moral laws (given that you admit that they are there), then you're opting for one of the other two alternatives. And if you say that they just happen to exist or that they happened by chance, you have new problems to solve. Your reasoning is flawed and untenable.
But something like the Christian idea of God has got to be true to account for morality. Hinduism (as an example) simply won't work, because in Hinduism there is no ultimate distinction between good and evil. The kind of morality that we've been talking about just doesn't fit in a Hindu world view, but it does fit into a Christian world view. Those religions that teach that two equal forces battle for our souls just ignore the fact that the forces themselves had to have a creator above them! So if absolute morality is true, then Hinduism can't be true. Atheism is false. Agnosticism is untenable.
Do you see how making a simple observation about the existence of a moral truth does a tremendous amount of philosophical work for us? It takes you much farther than you may care to admit.
Here is the answer to thr question of ‘moral absolutes. My point is to look at what seems to be the obvious existence of moral absolutes and to then look and see where that observation leads you, and it seems to lead you to the existence of a God who makes those moral rules because moral rules are designed kinds of things that don't make themselves. It seems that a very good explanation for their existence is that a God with moral character made a set of moral rules that express His character and those rules then become absolutes which are incumbent upon us. Think about this argument, it has powerful implications for your own beliefs. God has in fact shown Himself to you clearly! The options are obvious. If relativism is not tenable, then some form of absolutism is true. If absolute rules exist, this argues for the existence of an absolute God. It's that simple.
Mankind has an inborn sense of right and wrong that is evident in all cultures in history, even the most primitive. Mankind also has an unlimited capacity to do evil that no social system of form of government can suppress. All of the ideas of the 'age of enlightenment' have been tried and failed miserably. Even representative democracy is a failure that bears the seeds of it's own destruction. It's lasted this long because of the moral fiber ingrained in the laws taken primarily from the Judeo-Christian world view.
The proof is in the results. Would mankind live peaceably is all could live their lives by the radical rules in the Beatitudes? Would mankind be better off if they could indeed live as Jesus exhorts in the Sermon on the Mount? Theistic belief is the only viable alternative and it has some flaws when compared to the Christian world view. That argument will have to come later!
Rex
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Hellrider
Rex:
You got no replies yet. I can`t say that I`m surprised, because this is a very difficult question. Actually, what you presented here, is what I see as the most convincing argument for the existence of God (but still not...all the way, I`ll get to that in a minute). Yes, I agree with you, in the first half of your post. I believe in absolute moral standards. I believe some things are right and some things are wrong. This should be clear to all of us, if we use the most extreme examples. No, it is not always wrong to kill. If someone attacks you, and you defend yourself, you are not doing anything wrong if the other person dies. But premeditated murder, an attack on a defenseless individual, is just plain wrong, always was and always will be. We are all disgusted and outraged when we once in a while hear about some sick pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered a child. It can never be excused, it is just pure evil. If we were to accept a subjectivist moral-view, then it would not really be wrong, it would just be "wrong" for the innocent person/persons that it affected, such as the victim, the victims family, and possibly even the society around it/them, who heared about it, and became outraged/frustrated/sick to their stomach. It would be "wrong" to society only in the sense that it caused us all to feel pain/disgust. But it wouldn`t be wrong beyond that. And that is why it should be clear to everyone that a subjectivist view on morality is not acceptable. So yes, I accept the premiss, I believe in universal, objective ethical standars.
But does this mean that God necessarily exists? Like I said, I see this as the most compelling argument for the existence of God...but not quite... Your argument is that these universal, objective standards have to come from somewhere. I disagree with that, because the same could also be said about God. This whole scenario only gets us to the old enigma: The first cause! If someone created the world, then who created this "someone". A higher God? Ok, who created that God then? You know where this leads to... But why not accept that these objective, eternal ethical standards are there, and why can`t they themselves be God? I know that this is a heretical thought to you, Rex, but this really is, per se, not any more inlogical than the belief in a God, a "first cause". Believing in God doesn`t really get us any further to "the truth" than accepting these universal ethical values. It really doesn`t, because there is no reason to invent (?) a cause that is equally unexplainable as the phenomena that we are attempting to explain! Always remember Ockhams razor. Do not try to attribute any more reasons to explain a phenomena than necessary...
But I truly enjoyed your post. I have tried many times to explain to people why the subjectivist, nihilist view on morals and ethics not only is repulsive, but also that it simply doesn`t work! You put your finger on something important here.
-
Shining One
Thank you Hellrider!
>I disagree with that, because the same could also be said about God. This whole scenario only gets us to the old enigma: The first cause! If someone created the world, then who created this "someone". A higher God? Ok, who created that God then? You know where this leads to...
Remember, the universe does have a beginning point. We cannot think beyond our capacity to understand. I do 'know where this leads'. We cannot grasp eternity as it is too big of a concept, right? This is where faith really comes into play and where people divide. I can add to my faith the personal relationship that I have with the Lord. That exists as a reality for me: I ask for results and confirmation and it is given. One who has not experienced that does not have that frame of reference. I understand completely.
>But why not accept that these objective, eternal ethical standards are there, and why can`t they themselves be God? I know that this is a heretical thought to you, Rex, but this really is, per se, not any more inlogical than the belief in a God, a "first cause".
The apostle John uses the Hellenistic concept of "the Word", as you are aware. God has revealed Himself in the Word of God, who stepped into our timeline from eternity. Here is the crux: can you accept God as revealed in a moral concept and not have to have a Bible that is inerrant? I can and I also see that 'infallible' is a more provable concept in scripture. Many liberal Christians view the O.T. as history, prophecy and poetry that comes from the Jewish people (primarily) yet in Jesus lineage we see Gentiles as well! We also see that Jesus knew His time on the cross had come because the gentiles were asking about Him.
>Believing in God doesn`t really get us any further to "the truth" than accepting these universal ethical values. It really doesn`t, because there is no reason to invent (?) a cause that is equally unexplainable as the phenomena that we are attempting to explain! Always remember Ockhams razor. Do not try to attribute any more reasons to explain a phenomena than necessary...
While you are on that 'razor's edge' please also consider 'Pascal's Wager'. My faith is constructed on the 1) My personal relationship with and the foundation of the historical Jesus, 2) the teachings of the apostles and their perseverance through deadly trials: they knew the God/man and would not have died for a lie (Chuck Colson's book, 'Born Again' cites some good reasoning as does C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'). 3) My own resulting salvation and the minor miracles that I have seen. 4) We love others and even animals and we appreciate the estetic beauty of our world. I believe that 'irreducible complexity' has absolutely devestated the materialist concepts. 5) People don't want to see it because they do now want to be accountable to anyone besides themselves.
>But I truly enjoyed your post. I have tried many times to explain to people why the subjectivist, nihilist view on morals and ethics not only is repulsive, but also that it simply doesn`t work! You put your finger on something important here.
I do appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful reply. I also thank you for the kind words. May God Bless you and yours.
Rex -
IP_SEC
Morals are only absolute if they are defined as such by a society as they are a construct of that society. They are usually based on whether or not an action is harmful or helpful; destructive or constructive within that society as well as the edicts of whatever religous tome they may follow.
-
-
daniel-p
Know what this is?:
A big pile of shit. Horse shit to be exact. -
jgnat
This is gridlock.
Three guesses which your essay reminds me of. Ah, well, I'll debone it for the meat. Be back in a few minutes.
-
Hellrider
IP_SEC:
Morals are only absolute if they are defined as such by a society as they are a construct of that society. They are usually based on whether or not an action is harmful or helpful; destructive or constructive within that society as well as the edicts of whatever religous tome they may follow.
That means that nothing is really wrong. What is "destructive"? What is "constructive" (within your view)? What is destructive to one person, may be totally cool for another person. For example, within your view, we would have to admit that there was nothing wrong with nazi-Germany: We may feel now, 60 years later, that killing all those jews, gypsys and homosexuals, was a bad thing. But to them, to that society as a whole, in which an overwhelming part shared Hitlers views in the 20s and early 30s (44% voted for him in 1933), and even more shared his views in the late 30s (after a bit of indoctrination and persuasion), whiping out the unwanted may have been a good thing. Within your view, it surely would have been a good thing (for them, in your view, that`s what it`s all about, for them), at least if they had won the war. Of course, the fact that you are now probably repulsed by my last statement, shows that you don`t really believe what you just wrote, you just don`t know it yet. There are so much wrong with your statement that I don`t even know where to begin.
-
Terry
Now, here are some more questions: Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from? Who made this rule up and why should it apply to everyone? Apply that to our physical reality. Where did it come from? Where do our very mental processes come from and why should we even be alive, much less self-aware?
Survival is a necessity; else life ceases and with it all values lose effect. (Yes, all values stem from life itself).
1.Man has to choose to be rational. It is an effort and not automatic.
2.The clear choice to man is to be a rational person who makes choices which increase the value and length of his life; or, he becomes a suicidal creature.
3.Man must hold life as the highest value. The quality of that life stems from the correctness of each choice he makes.
4.Consequently, the Standard of Value which is man's ethics is man's own life.
5.Man's use of reason is his basic means of survival. The extent to which man is reasonable is the extent to which he survives well.
6. Thinking and productive work are the essentials to survival.
The flaw of religion is this: Morality cannot be commanded! What is "moral" is what is chosen. To be commanded and to obey is not a choice. Why? The penalty for failure to obey (God) is death.
Man requires a rational mind to exercise his tools of knowledge:
REASON----PURPOSE---SELF-ESTEEM.
Reason is man's tool of knowledge.
Purpose is his choice of happiness.
Self-esteem is the certainty that his mind is competent to think for itself.
Man's values stem from his focus of consciousness to determine what is best for himself.
It has often been foolishly said that man needs no MORALITY isolated on a desert island. Just the opposite! That is where man would need it most.
Food, shelter, clothing and a meaningful existence can only come from the man's own efforts! It is the man on the island who must fend for himself using his rational mind to create whatever quality of life there will be.
A person who only obeys orders will shortly die in such an enviorn in despair with no one to tell him what to do and how to do it.
All of man's choices are teleological. They have an end result in store.
Choices are on a grade from best to worst and the consequences are very real; the better the choice, the better the outcome.
MORALITY only comes from FREE WILL.
Obeying a higher authority is not FREE WILL. Obeying authority is slavery to the cause and effect of another mind not your own.
The Bible scenario short-circuits the value of man and his mind. It denigrates it and disables it. A "righteous" man is one who has no will of his own because it was surrendered into slavery to a "benign" superior force with the power to destroy him if he does otherwise.
RELIGION VIEWS MAN AS weak, sinful, imperfect, disabled, defective, ignorant and useless......except insofar as service to authority requires some action of him.
RELIGION is a blight on man's rational mind.
A religious man has no morality; he is merely a slave to whatever authority he allows to boss him around.
-
IP_SEC
That means that nothing is really wrong.
Exactly.
What is constructive/destructive.
con·struc·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k
adj.- Serving to improve or advance; helpful
de·struc·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d
adj.- Causing or wreaking destruction; ruinous: a destructive act; a policy that is destructive to the economy.
Constructive/destructive: If everyone murdered everyone else (i know, i know) our species would become extinct. Constructive=dont go around killing people, let as many live as possible. Destructive=kill people, destroy the gene pool, the benifits to society the murdered person might have made, now society has to carry the burden (or not) of providing for his or her family.
And this argument is not absolute either. Another person might make an argument that there are some people that need killin for society to benifit. Or that the planet would be better off without our species poopin in its own back yard.
