The inferior "objective" morality of faith

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:14 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I cannot speak for others on what people should value. I can attempt to become a position of authority and attempt to persuade others to hold my values, but that doesn't work very well with adults. My children however, is a different story.


But: There are those who root this authority in God, while others root it in Reason.

I "root" it instead in the manner in which I have come -- existentially -- to understand the meaning of identity, value judgments and power.

Thus a position of authority for me revolves more or less around democracy and the rule of law. Rather than in either might makes right or right makes might. I just have no illusions regarding that in a world deeply ensconced "for all practical purposes" in the capitalist global economy.

And there "philosophy" will revolve far more around "show me the money" [around realpolitik] than anything approaching a deontological assessment of Good and Evil.

However folks like uccisore like to argue that capitalism itself is the embodiment of the Good that is the embodiment of the Christian God.

Or so it seems to me.

But then he is a flagrant, doctrinaire objectivist -- both politically and religiously. So, from my perspective, how deeply can we ever expect his thinking here to actually go?

And, regarding my own daughter, I made it abundantly clear to her that my own moral and political values were largely existential fabrications/contraptions. And that there does not appear to way a way in which to "reason" morality into existence.

Although, sure, there actually may well be. I can only be persuaded or not persuaded of this.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:However if people believe in God, then there's no reason to discuss values.


Or, perhaps, any discussion here will revolve by and large around convincing others that their own God reflects the highest values. Though even here that will often revolve around a subjective interpretation of what is said to be the one and only rational [or spiritually correct] manner in which to construe God's agenda in the Bible.

Just think how ludicrous it is that, while Jews, Christians and Moslems all speak of a God's, the God's, my God's authority in different ways, they are all speaking of the same God!

They will then even go on "crusades" or "jihads" in order to impose their own understanding of this God and the "Good" on the "infidels".

But: What they won't do [at least not with me] is to discuss the existential relationship between their moral values on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Their values are of their God's, which I would say is of the dogma of men who pawned off their values as Gods. As such, I find that type of moral persuasion to be evil. It is not the moral persuasion I engage in with my children, I let them question my values. However, I don't know if they take this to heart, yet. They are young and they are keen on being like me, or their mother and this is natural for children, it seems.


Here though I do not see any real substantive, substantial or practical difference between rooting values in God or in one or another political ideology; or in one or another deontological philosophy. Dogma in, dogma out when push comes to shove. It just gets passed down through the generations when and where it is able to do so.

And allowing your children to question your values is one thing, allowing them to reject them something different. Some parents will encourage their children to "be yourself" but then draw the line the extent to which they are not choosing to be what the parents themselves deem to be the "right" thing or the "good" thing.

They really seem to want it both ways though.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36134
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Uccisore wrote:
You claim that differences of moral opinion aren't subject to correct and incorrect, and yet Christian values are illogical and irrational. You claim that any value system is basically fine as long as you're sincere, and yet Christian values are literally evil.


Yes - so I make that claim with the understanding that the moral opinion is based on a coherent, rational, logic valuation, or value, that led to that opinion. Values as I stated are something that are at the core of who we are as humans, who we are as humans are different from one person to the next, although commonality does occur quite frequently on a variety of values. I did not make the claim that Christian values are evil, that is a strawman on your part. I said something that is different and shouldn't be paraphrased to some simplification that Christian values are evil. Christian values are very broad as I have shown in the OP and often don't even have roots in their faith necessarily, but can have roots more in the culture or aspects of culture that isn't necessarily related to the faith.




Uccisore wrote:That's the criticism- everything you wrote today contradicted everything you wrote yesterday. Your desire to make religion and the religious look back overrides all actual logical considerations in your writing has been pointed out to you before, by other people, long before this thread was created.

When you claim that any intelligent person can come up with a more righteous rational, and logical moral system than Christian ethics (or what you imagine them to be, let's be honest), and then when pressed you admit that you actually don't think correct or incorrect applies to moral systems and that one is just as good as another, you demostrate that your position had no foundation- you just wanted to rant at religious people.


I explained why "correct" was harsh. I don't think you may have understood what I meant when I discussed this in multiple sentences why I considered it harsh. My position has the foundation of my values, as should all morality. This is important - it is a morality that is of the individual - not of some people from 5,000 years ago pawning off their morality as that of Gods. Note, I stated pawning off your morality as God's is evil, in the sense that those who wrote pretending to be writing "gods words" when in truth, they were not, is evil.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:37 pm

iambiguous wrote:
But: There are those who root this authority in God, while others root it in Reason.

I "root" it instead in the manner in which I have come -- existentially -- to understand the meaning of identity, value judgments and power.

Thus a position of authority for me revolves more or less around democracy and the rule of law. Rather than in either might makes right or right makes might. I just have no illusions regarding that in a world deeply ensconced "for all practical purposes" in the capitalist global economy.

And there "philosophy" will revolve far more around "show me the money" [around realpolitik] than anything approaching a deontological assessment of Good and Evil.

However folks like uccisore like to argue that capitalism itself is the embodiment of the Good that is the embodiment of the Christian God.

Or so it seems to me.


Sounds reasonable, iambiguous. So you find your values in this political framework, if you will, as I see it?

iambiguous wrote:But then he is a flagrant, doctrinaire objectivist -- both politically and religiously. So, from my perspective, how deeply can we ever expect his thinking here to actually go?

And, regarding my own daughter, I made it abundantly clear to her that my own moral and political values were largely existential fabrications/contraptions. And that there does not appear to way a way in which to "reason" morality into existence.

Although, sure, there actually may well be. I can only be persuaded or not persuaded of this.


Sure, aren't they all existential fabrications? It is merely just a judgment of good and bad...

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:However if people believe in God, then there's no reason to discuss values.


iambiguous wrote:Or, perhaps, any discussion here will revolve by and large around convincing others that their own God reflects the highest values. Though even here that will often revolve around a subjective interpretation of what is said to be the one and only rational [or spiritually correct] manner in which to construe God's agenda in the Bible.

Just think how ludicrous it is that, while Jews, Christians and Moslems all speak of a God's, the God's, my God's authority in different ways, they are all speaking of the same God!

They will then even go on "crusades" or "jihads" in order to impose their own understanding of this God and the "Good" on the "infidels".

But: What they won't do [at least not with me] is to discuss the existential relationship between their moral values on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.


I wouldn't necessarily think they are speaking of the same god. Rather, every single person has an individual god, which is their own personal idea of what god is.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Their values are of their God's, which I would say is of the dogma of men who pawned off their values as Gods. As such, I find that type of moral persuasion to be evil. It is not the moral persuasion I engage in with my children, I let them question my values. However, I don't know if they take this to heart, yet. They are young and they are keen on being like me, or their mother and this is natural for children, it seems.


iambiguous wrote:Here though I do not see any real substantive, substantial or practical difference between rooting values in God or in one or another political ideology; or in one or another deontological philosophy. Dogma in, dogma out when push comes to shove. It just gets passed down through the generations when and where it is able to do so.

And allowing your children to question your values is one thing, allowing them to reject them something different. Some parents will encourage their children to "be yourself" but then draw the line the extent to which they are not choosing to be what the parents themselves deem to be the "right" thing or the "good" thing.

They really seem to want it both ways though.


Yes good point...
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby CelineK » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:46 pm

It is not just religions, but ALL forms of monopolies morally bankrupt society.
The Laws Of Light, Emotions And Sexuality. http://www.celinek.net The time has come in the history of man's journey from his material jungle to his spiritual mountain top when it is imperative that he must live more and more in the cosmic Light universe of knowing, and less in the electric wave universe of sensing -- Walter Russell.
=============================================================
A Money-Free Society Is Now Reality! The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to fall under the will or legislative authority of man but only have the law of nature (immutable principles) for his rule. Samuel Adams. -- http://www.earthcustodians.net
User avatar
CelineK
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:37 pm
Location: No Man's Land In A Money-Free Wold

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:52 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Yes - so I make that claim with the understanding that the moral opinion is based on a coherent, rational, logic valuation, or value, that led to that opinion. Values as I stated are something that are at the core of who we are as humans, who we are as humans are different from one person to the next, although commonality does occur quite frequently on a variety of values. I did not make the claim that Christian values are evil, that is a strawman on your part.


Anybody is free to read the words you actually wrote and see how vile and horrible you consider Christian values to be, it's right there in your post. The fact that you only explicitly use the word 'evil' to apply to the way Christian values are taught instead of the values themselves is moot when you DO explicitly call Christian values morally bankrupt, inferior, baseless, archaic, backwards, not founded on logic, unreasonable, irrational, misogynistic, and immoral. If you want to claim that you in no way meant to imply that a value system that is all of those things and is also taught in a way that is evil is not evil itself, well then I simply don't believe you.

My position has the foundation of my values, as should all morality.


Anyone can say that. Some guy reads the Bible, decides that it makes sense, and bases his values on what it teaches. There, his moral position has the foundation of his values.

This is important - it is a morality that is of the individual -


I'd say probably 80-90% of moral valuations deal with how we interact with other people. Each individual having their own private morality that has no standard other than "As long as you came up with it yourself, it's fine" makes no sense at all. Morality is inherently cooperative.

not of some people from 5,000 years ago pawning off their morality as that of Gods.


But you also said that it's good to teach morals to future generations. So you've got this incoherent dynamic in which people teach their morals to others, and if those others like what they hear (or are children) they adopt them, and this is good, except when religious people do the exact same thing, and then it's evil. That's raw prejudice.

Your imagining that religious values are taught by people 'pawning off their morality as that of Gods' is just cynicism, not an argument and certainly not a position you've defended. Neither the teachers or the students would describe what they're doing in that way- it's just a thing you say because of your prejudice.

Note, I stated pawning off your morality as God's is evil, in the sense that those who wrote pretending to be writing "gods words" when in truth, they were not, is evil.


The problem here of course is that any Christian would agree with you on that. No Christian value system or other religious value system I've ever heard of endorses pretending that the things you write or say are God's word. In fact, in the Bible it's a capital offense. It doesn't make any sense to criticize a value system on the base of something that the value system condemns just as strongly as you do. So your argument against Christian ethics goes right out the window, that simple. Byebye.

All you've got left is an argument against Christian people- you can allege that even though their moral system is fine, the people are guilty of hypocrisy, because they do the thing they condemn (teaching their own morals as if they are God's). I can't stress enough that at this point you are no longer criticizing a moral system, but leveling accusations against a group of individuals. That takes you out of the realm of pure logical argument, and into the realm of empiricism- i.e., you need evidence to back accusations against people.

I see none. There appears to be a presumption that you are an atheist, and that everybody who reads this will be an atheist, and that we should all just accept that anybody who claims to be teaching the words of God is wrong. Well I'm sure I don't need to tell YOU, logical and rational as you are, that "Divine Command Theory isn't very good given God doesn't exist" isn't exactly compelling.

And anyway, that's not the worst of it. The worst of it is that if a person is teaching something that isn't God's word but they think it is, they still aren't guilty of what you're claiming. They're merely making an innocent mistake, as any given moral teacher is bound to do. You try to escape this problem by putting the blame on people living thousands of years ago- surely those guys must have known that they were't teaching God's word even if everybody since then believes it. But again, what's your evidence? It seems to be nothing more than a presumption of atheism, again. And once again, I shouldn't have to remind you that "Assuming there's no such thing as God, people who claim to be teaching God's word must be lying or mistaken" isn't a very compelling argument.

So in short, when you peel away all the vitriol, we're left with, "Atheists shouldn't accept Divine Command Theory."

Well no shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:30 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Also because it is not based on their values... It is not true to themselves.
You know when people are not being true to themselves? You know what their 'real' values are?

How do you manage to know all that?


Well when they say "because god says so". Well, then they are essentially telling us its not based on their values. But of course, there is the possibility that they don't even know what they are talking about or even saying.
Just because they say something about God does not mean that those values are not genuinely theirs nor that they would not have adopted exactly the same moral stance under another moral system.

"Thou shalt not steal ", God said.

Maybe they don't steal because God said.
OR
Maybe they don't steal because that's one of their values. Maybe they are being true to themselves when they don't steal.

How can you know?

Maybe they are drawn to the Bible because it corresponds to their values.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:29 pm

phyllo wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:


Well when they say "because god says so". Well, then they are essentially telling us its not based on their values. But of course, there is the possibility that they don't even know what they are talking about or even saying.


Just because they say something about God does not mean that those values are not genuinely theirs nor that they would not have adopted exactly the same moral stance under another moral system.

"Thou shalt not steal ", God said.

Maybe they don't steal because God said.
OR
Maybe they don't steal because that's one of their values. Maybe they are being true to themselves when they don't steal.

How can you know?

Maybe they are drawn to the Bible because it corresponds to their values.


Then they shouldn't claim the reason it is wrong is because God says so. Now, as a former Christian - I deemed keeping holy the sabbath as right, and disobeying it to be wrong, only on the account that "God said so". I saw no reason why it would be morally wrong other than it was a commandment. I saw no reason why I couldn't pick up sticks on my lawn on Sunday afternoon, which is considered work, but God said so, so it must be wrong. I was an unthinking slave to this so called God.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:55 pm


Then they shouldn't claim the reason it is wrong is because God says so.
Your complaint, in that case, is that they use God as the justification rather than explaining it in terms of their own values.
:-k Seems much more efficient to use God because the explanation in terms of values will be long and drawn out. And maybe they are not good with words but they feel what they do is right.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:12 pm

phyllo wrote:

Then they shouldn't claim the reason it is wrong is because God says so.
Your complaint, in that case, is that they use God as the justification rather than explaining it in terms of their own values.
:-k Seems much more efficient to use God because the explanation in terms of values will be long and drawn out. And maybe they are not good with words but they feel what they do is right.


I'm saying the actual value is "God said so"
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:38 pm

I'm saying the actual value is "God said so"
I don't have any numbers about how many Christians think of it in those terms but I think that it's a very small minority.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:54 pm

phyllo wrote:
I'm saying the actual value is "God said so"
I don't have any numbers about how many Christians think of it in those terms but I think that it's a very small minority.


How many do you think understand the morality behind the 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath Holy? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:43 pm

How many do you think understand the morality behind the 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath Holy? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
But previously you said that men wrote the Bible and attributed it to God.

So those men thought that giving workers a day of rest was fair, reasonable and morally correct.

So what if they wrote it thousands of years ago. Who cares that they phrased it in those particular terms. It's a idea that is still applicable today and lots of people agree with it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:49 pm

phyllo wrote:
How many do you think understand the morality behind the 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath Holy? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
But previously you said that men wrote the Bible and attributed it to God.

So those men thought that giving workers a day of rest was fair, reasonable and morally correct.

So what if they wrote it thousands of years ago. Who cares that they phrased it in those particular terms. It's a idea that is still applicable today and lots of people agree with it.


Indeed they are attributing the reason to god. They don't know why god values the sabbath as holy, maybe on a superficial level, but if they don't value it the same as god, how do they know what that reason is, or value is? They are merely accepting god's notion that the Sabbath must be holy, it is not really their value, but their god's value, and that is good enough for them. That is not how morality is formed. That is adopting someone else's morality.. it is not being true to their values, they are blindly following. "Think for yourself, question authority".
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:56 pm

If the reason is good and true then why does it matter to you whether or not it comes from (christian) god?
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:57 pm

Wizard wrote:If the reason is good and true then why does it matter to you whether or not it comes from (christian) god?



It doesn't if it is good and true, from my judgment.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:15 pm

Then you technically agree with Christians and their God when those reasons are good and true, according to both of you, and you agree. However you disagree on the source of that reason.

You never explained, argued, or justified your reasoning when it comes to the source of those "good and true" reasons/judgments. Why are christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god?
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:26 pm

Wizard wrote:Then you technically agree with Christians and their God when those reasons are good and true, according to both of you, and you agree. However you disagree on the source of that reason.

You never explained, argued, or justified your reasoning when it comes to the source of those "good and true" reasons/judgments. Why are christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god?


Agreeing with morality is one thing. Being persuaded because it comes from an almighty being that will damn you to eternal punishment is another.

Why are Christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god? Because it isn't their morality, it isn't how moral judgments occur. It has also changed, there's a claim that it's objective because it comes from an all knowing being, but then when it comes down to it, the morality is tossed aside for other greater morality that the "Christian's" perceive, such as not condoning slavery anymore, even finding it morally wrong. Which contradicts their faith, contradicts the basis of some of the moral system they agree to. Yet they in turn, may take the morality such as keeping holy the sabbath as good, simply because God says so.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:32 pm

Christians are devout followers, how can anybody make a morality "theirs". That doesn't make sense. To practice a morality, is to make it yours, is to own it. One of the big tenets of Christianity are to practice what you preach, expressed by their Lord in flesh form, Christ. Christianity, literally, is the practice of emulating their Lord's superior, and "perfect" to them, moral behaviors.

God is meant to be the final arbiter and retribution of godliness, good and evil, and sin. In Christianity it is unjust and immoral to presume that humans can "equal" their god's judgement.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Moreno » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:40 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:But as alluded to earlier, reason and logic of our modern values oft shine through, and that is the job of those moral, or good non believers, to provide a reasonable sound morality, based on knowledge and logic, not belief,


Well. Go ahead then.

I see you saying that the moral opinions of right now differ from the moral opinions of back in the day. I don't see you saying why we should consider one correct and the other not.


"Correct" is too harsh of a word for difference of a moral opinion. As long as it is true to ones values - I might say it is then correct, perhaps. The difference is, when a morality is based on values of another, and you subscribe to that morality but your values differ, then it is not "correct". Unless you mean something else by "correct".
So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps. But if they believe in values because they got them from someone else, the values themselves are not correct?
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Moreno » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:50 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Also because it is not based on their values... It is not true to themselves.
You know when people are not being true to themselves? You know what their 'real' values are?

How do you manage to know all that?


Well when they say "because god says so". Well, then they are essentially telling us its not based on their values. But of course, there is the possibility that they don't even know what they are talking about or even saying.
Most people, most Christians, will not simply say that it good because God says so or it is bad or evil because God says so. They also will tend to explain why, in down to earth, humans terms. They may be wrong or write, but while it may happen on occasion, most Christians will say that their values and God's values match and this is implicit in the way they argue against abortion. They do not just say that God says so. They say because the fetus has a soul, as one example amongst many. They will call it a baby and emotionally explain why they want to protect babies. They will refer to bad feelings in almost mothers who aborted. (note, I am not anti-abortion, I am simply saying what I encounter in discussions with Christians. They almost always will explain in practical terms why something is good. IOW they will show that their values and God's match. Yes, it does happen that Christians will say 'Because God said so.' Period, end of discussion. But I find this very rare.

I imagine you now saying that they say that a fetus has a soul because it is in the Bible. But this makes it seem like there is some, for the modern secular person, clear development stage for the fetus to baby, where they think, now we must consider it a person. It is possible to believe that once the life has started it is a person AND to find this coincides with the Bible. Or, in the reverse order, one is exposed to the Bible and then decide that this makes sense, about the baby. Of course in real life deciding oneself and learning morals from others are not neat packets. My point is that you are writing as if it is mutually exclusive. One can either have one's own values or follow some version of God's values. And that is simply not the case.

Just as you may, for example, end up with many values your parents had, conscously or not. They can be both theirs and yours.

And with your 20 years of talking to Christians I cannot understand how you did not notice that they JUSTIFY God's moral laws all the time. They explain why they are good rules. They do this all the time. They do it here. Yet if someone who did not have contact with them read your posts it would be as if all they answer is with an appeal to authority. This is not grounded in reality.

Let me ask you, is this a belief on your part or something you know. Do you know that they do not share the values of their God or is it a belief on your part? Or is it a fairly well justified belief but not knowledge? Or is it a not so well justified but potentially correct belief?
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:56 pm

Moreno wrote:So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps.

Yes.

But: "WWW"? .... WW III ANGRY is not the World Wide Web ( :o :shock: ), although he probably wants to be, but he is not ... - ... not yet. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:29 pm

Moreno wrote:So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps. But if they believe in values because they got them from someone else, the values themselves are not correct?


Yes you got it, I suppose. But correct is Uccisore's word, not mine.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:45 pm

Moreno wrote:Most people, most Christians, will not simply say that it good because God says so or it is bad or evil because God says so. They also will tend to explain why, in down to earth, humans terms. They may be wrong or write, but while it may happen on occasion, most Christians will say that their values and God's values match and this is implicit in the way they argue against abortion. They do not just say that God says so. They say because the fetus has a soul, as one example amongst many. They will call it a baby and emotionally explain why they want to protect babies. They will refer to bad feelings in almost mothers who aborted. (note, I am not anti-abortion, I am simply saying what I encounter in discussions with Christians. They almost always will explain in practical terms why something is good. IOW they will show that their values and God's match. Yes, it does happen that Christians will say 'Because God said so.' Period, end of discussion. But I find this very rare.

I imagine you now saying that they say that a fetus has a soul because it is in the Bible. But this makes it seem like there is some, for the modern secular person, clear development stage for the fetus to baby, where they think, now we must consider it a person. It is possible to believe that once the life has started it is a person AND to find this coincides with the Bible. Or, in the reverse order, one is exposed to the Bible and then decide that this makes sense, about the baby. Of course in real life deciding oneself and learning morals from others are not neat packets. My point is that you are writing as if it is mutually exclusive. One can either have one's own values or follow some version of God's values. And that is simply not the case.

Just as you may, for example, end up with many values your parents had, conscously or not. They can be both theirs and yours.

And with your 20 years of talking to Christians I cannot understand how you did not notice that they JUSTIFY God's moral laws all the time. They explain why they are good rules. They do this all the time. They do it here. Yet if someone who did not have contact with them read your posts it would be as if all they answer is with an appeal to authority. This is not grounded in reality.

Let me ask you, is this a belief on your part or something you know. Do you know that they do not share the values of their God or is it a belief on your part? Or is it a fairly well justified belief but not knowledge? Or is it a not so well justified but potentially correct belief?


Moreno, it depends on the moral situation and judgement. Most people have values that coincide with Christian values already, such as Killing or murder is bad, and stealing is bad, basic stuff. Of course that stuff is justified reasonably, by Christians, by not appealing to authority. Its when you get to the Bibles questionable morality, in which you'll find these answers that apply to "because God said so". This is not justified, and it can't be justified because they don't understand the morality or values of the moral situation. I'm not saying its all an appeal to authority, I don't think that would be the case by my OP - as it specifically explains general Christian morality has become separated from this "objective Christian morality" over time. Today, people don't kill adulterers regardless of what the Bible says. 400 years ago, that was a different story, because of what the Bible says.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:53 pm

Wizard wrote:Christians are devout followers, how can anybody make a morality "theirs". That doesn't make sense. To practice a morality, is to make it yours, is to own it. One of the big tenets of Christianity are to practice what you preach, expressed by their Lord in flesh form, Christ. Christianity, literally, is the practice of emulating their Lord's superior, and "perfect" to them, moral behaviors.

God is meant to be the final arbiter and retribution of godliness, good and evil, and sin. In Christianity it is unjust and immoral to presume that humans can "equal" their god's judgement.



By understanding and agreeing with a morale system, it becomes their moral system. You don't necessarily need to practice a morality to make it your morality, remember, morality is a judgment of what is good or bad morally, and often we can go against even what we think is good or bad, morally. That goes for everyone, whether you're Christian or not. While God is meant to be the final arbiter of good/evil, in Christianity morality has changed quite a bit the past 2,000 years as I've already pointed out. That is why this "objective" morality can be seen to not really hold water. If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the "holy spirit" as is "gifted" to us from "God" to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus' visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of "God's". Of course, that really isn't the case. We used to punish harshly, as might seem worthy for God, for any broken morality such as adultery. After all, God is going to punish much harsher in the afterlife, so its "best" to have a deterrent now, under guidance of this "holy spirit".
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:12 pm

If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the "holy spirit" as is "gifted" to us from "God" to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus' visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of "God's".
Objective does not mean unchangeable. Since the world changes continuously, objective means being in synch with these changes.
That is demonstrated by evolution ... changes in the environment determine which animals and plants survive, which produces changes in the characteristics of the animals.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users