Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
Kmisho,
There is a language barrier affecting you and the person you are debating, I'm sure. Your definition of "objective" is in most cases quite sufficient. However, in discussing moral objectivism with a theist, the big difference is usually a meta-ethical question of the nature of objective morality itself. Most theists are moral realists who reject the notion of ethical subjectivity.
To the theist, moral objectivity usually means that certain actions are right or wrong independent of human opinion. Not just that certain things are wrong today but ok 50 yrs ago or what have you, but they are wrong now, and always were wrong, and ever shall be wrong. They are wrong even if we do not have the knowledge that they are wrong.
For example, murder. A moral realist could say, based on the objective morality of God (for example), that murder will always be wrong. It will remain wrong even if society evolves and murder becomes acceptable. Even if mankind never discovered it was wrong, it is still wrong.
Of course, then the argument usually goes differently at this point, and the question arises how we know for certain what is right, and what is wrong, etc etc.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out a couple different ways of looking at moral obectivism and simply advise that often the atheist and the theist are not always speaking the same language.
Blessing |
I disagree slightly, nothing is wrong and right intrinsically
Shakespear put it quite well.. Nothing is evil lest thinking makes it so.
There is only cause and effect beyond that... is people choosing what either serves them or doesnt serve them, what is beneficial or not beneficial based on their own values which have been formed from either they think is important or what others think is important.. Its from this mankind has formed its own civil laws based on deciding what serves or doesnt serve them and even that has not been decided very well as how wealth is distributed is an example.
Most of society's important laws have been formed from organized religions most came about through thinkers, teachers and then by others who interpretated.. etc followers... through this some have been misinterpreted and some haven't
Some work very well and some dont in maintaining a degree of harmony
Many of these observations and teachings have become the basis of some of the most influential religions.. and have formed cultures
At the basis of them all is Belief, as what people believe determines how people behave, what people want or dont want, what they look for and what they dont, what they choose and what they dont.. what they save , what they destory.. and also what they justify
The worlds cultures have emerged from beliefs, and many of those beliefs have become Religious Doctrines which then go on to tell others not what humans want and desire but what God wants and desires..
For example... Marriage of same sex
Many countries have laws against it.. not a lot support it. Some feel that it damages our moral fiber.
Many have decided that it should be prohibitied by civil law on the basis of it being immoral
Many would have laws be passed based on immoral behaviour.. yet that would have a tough challenge in todays world.
Their would be tons of laws written.. everything from subtle to ludicrous..such as advertisements displaying men and women in underwear to drawing pictures of people and animals ( graven images )... playing music that was not Religious, for some.. females leaving houses without being covered from head to toe.. or being unshaven in a business
From this consequences could and do end up going from behind doors punishment to open square floggins when the Moral police find out
Some would say tis does or would not happen worldwide
But given the chance for fundamentalists to take charge and force society to obey its laws based on Morality.. well thats another thing..
It wouldnt take much if people in highly influenctial places convinced people about rightness and wrongness concernign say same sex marriages..
Most dont support morality based on Legislation, only on issues which are non serving and harmful such as outright murder.
yet.. there are those who are influential that are capable and have convinced people on various issues like such..
In 2003 the Vatican launched their own campaign against gay marriages and classed it gravely immoral and urged non catholics to join in with what they classed offensive... There was a 12 page guideline that was drawn up that had Pope John Paul 2nd approval o prevent the increase in laws allowing legal rights to homosexual marriages in europe and America
It was said that aall should vote against a law that was harmful and gravely immoral
A lot of opposition came to this document one person said..
"This hierarchy which also rules on other issues like fobidding the use of condoms to avoid adids is far from reality"
Most objections are not based on civil law.. they are based in moral judgement that people have made.. and that moral judgement comes from peoples understanding of WHAT THEY THINK Gods wants in regards to it all..
this is just one of MANY MANY examples over history, where things have been allowed based on WHAT PEOPLE THINK god wants
Or what people THINK God doesnt want.
The whole gay marriage is based on the idea that God has a preference in the matter of how people behave sexually.. this same thinking has kept laws preventing sexual practices while not allowing others... including mixed marriages between races
If the pope or respected religious folk said that God had nothing against this it would effect the legal system and destroy alot of moral justification on many laws that hav ebeen put in place today and in the past..
Many have made judgement calls on homosexuality and in doing so religious teachings have become part of non religious civil culture even if people dont believe in God or they do.
Another example is thoughts on Utero Genetic Manipulation.... it may not be in effect now but at some point there may come a time when a doctor tells a parent before birth that their embryo has a geneitic predisposition to hodginkins disease but if they make a genetic adjustment they could eliminate that and its likely the child would not get that.. this would require an adjustment whil the fetus is in the utero..
Most would say no.. partly fear, partly because they would think they are playing God creating designer babies.. As of course its up to God to decide what illness or disease a human should have.. thats Gods will and not something we should interfer with...
Case is convince enough people and a law can be passed against the practise of prebirth manipulation
Yet after birth people would be more than willing to allow doctors to do whatever they can to get rid of the disease..
So really it seems its not a case of if God wants the child to suffer or not, its just a question of whats Gods preference with regard to when you intervene
People will even pray to God for their kid to be spared.. yet the thought of prebirth solution is considered against Gods will
It seems to be Gods timing is messed up.. God would not have you mess with before birth but it's fine after
Societies create laws based on these judgements... culuturees emerge from our beliefs about things,not what we know for sure.. but merely beliefs
Most come from humanitys ideas about God.. so today we have the Religious community bearing down on tv, movies, video games classing what is right and wrong..
Govenments tell people to go to war and people can be against it yet if God tells people ah.. thats another thing..
The Rev Charles Stanley told his tv views and the internet that " God batles with people who oppose him who fight against him orhis followes.. so even though he hates war.. God is not agains tit and the old Test is proof of this.. God has divine reasons for choosing to use war to accomplish his will and that despire other peoples opinions about war.. according to him..what is most important is Gods viewpoint..and war has Gods stamp of approval.
And it goes on and on...
As I said before Culuturees emerge from our beliefs about things,not what we know for sure.. but merely beliefs, Some work well some dont.... but it is man who is deciding what is right and wrong.. any suggestion its God is merely a belief which isnt backed up other than by writings written by man.. and people have seen the various results and interpretations that come from deciding what should or shouldnt be done and so until they come direct from God their will always be opposition and the other side of the coin views