by bohm 104 Replies latest jw friends
What do the scriptures say?
How do you read them?
Irrelevant to my position. I've already stated my opinion that there is no objective absolute morality. To me the scriptures represent a subjective morality of the time, some of which has survived until our day and some of which has not. YOU are the one claiming absolute morality, so I would like to know what your stand on those issues are.
im not trying to convert you, im trying to examine the moral argument because i just think i figured out why its wrong: (1) it shift the burden of evidence and (2) it does not really provide an explanation for absolute morals in itself, its just a fancy way of saying: absolute morals exist.
I know you are not trying to convert me, only challenge me and I love you for that :)
1) Not sure what you mean when you say it shifts the burden of evidence...
2) I do believe that absolute morals exist, but I am honest in saying that I have no absolute proof of it, just what I think is evidence for it.
This thread exemplifies the tangled semantics involved in defining morality. IMO moralizing a certain behavior is an attempt to sidestep rational argumentation. If I wish to proscribe a certain behavior but cannot adequately convince everyone to avoid it using logic and appeals to fact, my best option is to lable it 'wrong' or 'immoral'. Take for example the buying and driving huge SUVs. I could argue scientifically that the waste and pollution are unnecessarily harmful and the hazards to other drivers are increased but many may either disbelieve my evidence or regard the benefits to them as more valuable than the harm to the earth or society. That may be very frustrating if I am passionate about the subject. If however I can elicite emotional response by labling the driving of big SUVs as immoral I am far more likely to compel people to avoid them out of concern for their reputation. Morals are tools of manipulation not actual arguments for or against behavior. Because of this "morals" are sometimes out of step with best evidence and actually do harm. Does this mean we live without standards? Of course not. An insightful people rely upon best evidence to establish what is deemed harmful. This is a rational, perhaps even scientific process. If a people cannot establish that a certain behavior choice is actually harmful it wisely must avoid demanding people abstain. I said it before that rather than right or wrong there is only helpful, harmful and harmless.
If a people cannot establish that a certain behavior choice is actually harmful it wisely must avoid demanding people abstain.
I'm just going to jump to devil's advocate here: The phrases "cannot establish" and "actually harmful" is going to be a lot of trouble for this sentence:
* Based on a bunch of opinions on the matter, society "cannot establish" that manmade global warming is true or not. But there is an absolute truth as to whether global warming is true or not (even if can't agree on it). So lets suppose manmade global warming IS true and is a major problem: then it would NOT be wise to say "do whatever you want"
* Also what IS "Actually harmful"? Harmful to who? The universe in a cosmic sense? Sentient creatures in the universe? Humans? Living things on the earth? The well-being of life-supporting planets like earth?
Is genocide "actually harmful"? Well it doesn't seem like a good thing by human standards in our society. But overpopulation and exponential growth are a MAJOR problem to society that will face us in a few years. Increasing the death rate in some way might be one of the most helpful things to the longterm stability of the planet and human family.
.... In short, if you're going to take this position against objective morals, you have to go all the way. I see a lot of people debating WLC that will recoil and say that Hitler was absolutely evil. You can't crawl back to "oh, this seems really bad so it must BE absoultely bad" at any time... Bad in our current society and evolutionary development is the best we can do (which is still a relatively strong position; just not the absoultely strong position that people want to be when discussing Hitler and rape and whatnot)
Simon17,
When I say that God is the source of objective moral values, I don't mean to say that every moral issue has a clear-cut answer that we can apply in any given situation as if God had given us a rule book that covers every conceivable situation. I would also acknowledge that God is the final judge, not me or my opinions.
That said, here's how I view what the scriptures say regarding what you asked me about.
1- Homosexuality
The scriptures say that any sex outside of marriage (marriage between one man and one woman) is wrong, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.
2- Abortion
The scriptures don't specifically discuss abortion, but given the basic reverence for life and references to life in the womb, I believe that abortion is not a biblically acceptable method of birth control, although I think it would be allowed if needed to protect the mother from death or great bodily harm just as self-defense is.
3- Slavery
Paul's letter to Philemon doesn't directly condemn slavery, but I think it would be impossible for Philemon to follow Paul's counsel and continue to be a slaveholder.
That said, I am aware that God allowed for slavery in the OT, especially in cases where Israel conquered other nations in war. Since they didn't have the capacity for prison camps, it would seem that slavery was an alternative to utterly destroying the conquered enemy.
4- Genocide
Obviously, the Bible condemns murder. God, of course, can take life when He chooses since He is God (He does this every day). I am aware that in the OT God commanded Israel to utterly destroy certain groups of people (the Amalekites, for example). Only a clear and direct command from God would make such a thing morally acceptable, and God would only command such a thing if it fact it was morally acceptable (God being the ultimate judge). I am also aware of the danger that various tyrants may claim or even believe God has given them such authority (radical Islam, for example).
PS
1) Not sure what you mean when you say it shifts the burden of evidence...
well, it was more a meta-analysis of how the argument is usually carried out. i think the result is often the burden of evidence is shifted upon the atheist, when he is not really the person who is trying to claim a magic thing exist.
2) I do believe that absolute morals exist, but I am honest in saying that I have no absolute proof of it, just what I think is evidence for it.
im not sure absolute morals exist (but i definately believe some systems of morals is better than another!), but even given that:
1) absolute morals exist
2) i got no explanation for it
...it does not follow that God exist. Only if God offer a good explanation of absolute morals. And saying "Absolute morals is in the nature of God" does not constitute a good explanation, and as others have pointed out, when you look at it emperically, god tend to do really crappy things, which kind of contradict the claim on a purely emperical basis.
Ok Ding, I appreciate your responses but the it reveals two flaws: First i understand that the Bible doesn't examine every situation that is why I let you have a 3rd option of "Depends".
#1) Part of WLC's argument is that there are absolute laws of morality that we all intrinsically just "know". He uses Rape and Hitler because we all generally feel that way. Now you extend this to homosexuality. Well, a lot of people don't intrinsically have any sort of feeling that this is wrong. I am one of these. Many homosexuals will grow up feeling that homosexuality is absolutuely RIGHT to them and how their body functions (we have one on this board who described it just a week or two ago). So we run into the problem of "ok, we have objective morals that everyone knows because they are objective -- like rape". But then we have all these other objective morals that people don't naturally feel at all! So how are they objective? You see? WLC appealed to their existence by our ability to just know them but then he (and you) extend it to things that this is not true about at all!
#2) We then have things like genocide that you basically want to say are objectively and absolutely immoral. Oh, but no. Not absolutely. If God does it, its ok. Oh, and if God asks you to do it, its ok. Well now its not an absolute AT ALL! Its now a subjective moral value. Genocide is wrong unless xxxxxxxxxx. So that destroys the notion of absolute morals anyway.
This doesn't show God doesn't exist mind you. I'm just arguing absolute morality doesn't exist. If you want to argue that there is not absolute right or wrong, everything depends on the situation and God can do whatever he wants at all times because he's unstoppable, then go ahead.
My point with this is your own definition of absolute morality is ruined by your examples of it.
I'm just going to jump to devil's advocate here: The phrases "cannot establish" and "actually harmful" is going to be a lot of trouble for this sentence:
Not really. Harm is much easier to define. If all affected parties (or their appointed representatives) agree that any negatives are out weighed by positives then we have no harm. This certainly cannot be argued for genicides or rape, hence these are behaviors rightly prohibited. The fact that there are often disagreements about the relative importance of the negatives and positives is why we do not have laws against SUVs etc..... This manner of societal governance frustrates those who have greater passion for the topic than respect for the opinions of others.
...it does not follow that God exist. Only if God offer a good explanation of absolute morals. And saying "Absolute morals is in the nature of God" does not constitute a good explanation, and as others have pointed out, when you look at it emperically, god tend to do really crappy things, which kind of contradict the claim on a purely emperical basis.
We seem to have the ability for a higher moral purpose that goes beyond the "selfish gene" or anything else that science can, at this time, account for.
Jesus's teaching go far beyond the golden rule and into the realm of "impossible" at times, " love thy enemy, pray for those that persecute you, etc", none of that is very "natural" or "naturalistic" yet one can't deny the benefit for those that practice it ( perhaps not a corpreal benefit but certainly a spiritual one and mental one).
Man is capabale of a higher moral far beyond even obvious logic and understanding, a moral action that can even seem countr-productive for him and his "genes" or "familal group".
No real reason for that to be unless there is a drive for an "absolute moral" of righteouness ( don't knwo how else to describe it, sorry) that can't be accounted for by simple evolutionary process.
...a moral action that can even seem countr-productive for him and his "genes" or "familal group".No real reason for that to be unless there is a drive for an "absolute moral" of righteouness ( don't knwo how else to describe it, sorry) that can't be accounted for by simple evolutionary process.
My dog is willing to risk its life for me, does that suggest it has a absolute moral sense?
And noone ever suggested evolution was simple.
