iz kāda dialoga

• A. We have literally become insane as a society. Apparently our deviance knows no bounds. How literally twisted does your reasoning have to be not only to agree with, but defend this practice? Truly unbelievable watching the downward spiral of this nation morally and ethically. Nonetheless, when you remove objective morality in favor of subjective morality there is no longer an anchor and the societal foundations quickly erode. Truly remarkable and astonishingly sad. We are destroying ourselves from the inside out.
• B. Weren’t your objective morals written down by someone? Seems that would still make them subjective.
• A. I take it from your response you do not believe in an objective morality? By what standard do you derive right from wrong? Isn’t it logical to assume that if a Moral Law Giver exists above and outside of humanity that He is able to convey His law to Humanity, using men that were inspired to write His law as He desired? If a Moral Law Giver does not exist then by what standard can you call anything evil or wrong? Do you believe evil exists? Subjective morality is not only illogical it is also very impractical to human civilization. For example, atheistic dictators that were not restrained by a higher law then their own government has murdered more people (well over 150 million) than all human wars combined in just the last 75 years.
• B. Lots of societies have come to roughly the same basic moral conclusions as we have, all without the help of the Bible! Trying to find a common link between them, you could say that moral systems tend to sprout from the instincts of individual self-preservation, community self-preservation, and sympathy/empathy. This is why most civilized societies eventually agree on things like: don’t lie cheat, steal, rape, murder, etc. The rules where there is disagreement are usually the more arbitrary ones: eating pork, gay sex, female clergy, etc.
• B. It’s also worth pointing out that omniscient God wasn’t the clearest writer. The various denominations of Christianity are all reading translations of the same book, yet many disagree on how some verses should be intepreted. Catholics, for example, take the pro-life thing much more seriously than Protestants do – not only do they oppose abortion, but also the death penalty, contraception, and most wars too. So even if we had a book full of objective truths that wasn’t written by subjective people, it would still be read subjectively by people later.
• B. No matter how you look at it, critical thinking is the way to go! :-)
• A. Ok first let me say, wow, there sure was some illogical statements there my friend. Quickly, you failed to answer my questions, so I will address your statements point by point. You stated.
• A. “Lots of societies have come to roughly the same basic moral conclusions as we have, all without the help of the Bible”
• A. First off, I think many of the murderous civilizations of the ancient world would fly square in the face of that comment. They are quite numerous and well do.cu.ment.ed. You might want to check it out given your vague inaccurate whitewash of human cultures and civilizations. The Celts were head hunters, the Maori were cannibals, the Mongols gutted the pregnant women of conquered nations and killed the infants by clubbing, The Vikings were well known for their raping and pillaging, the Roman Empire utilized torture as a form of entertainment, the Aztecs made human sacrifice a common family outing, the Nazis practiced genocide and medical torture/experimentation. These are just the tip of the iceberg my friend. In reality, human cultures have been incredibly brutal endorsing murder, cannibalism, rape, murder, theft, slavery, torture, human sacrifice, and sexual perversions including pedophilia. So no, your assertion that “lots of societies” have come to basicly similar morals is demonstrably and patently fallacious and inept.
• A. “Trying to find a common link between them, you could say that moral systems tend to sprout from the instincts of individual self-preservation, community self-preservation, and sympathy/empathy.”
• A. So what happens when one individuals self preservation morality clashes with and contradicts another persons morality? Or communities that have different ideas of morality? Who’s morality is right or wrong, better or worse? Whoever wins a fight/war? Right now ISIS believes it’s individual and community “self preservation” makes it moral to lop off heads and rape little girls and women. You down with that? It’s their moral right according to you so you can’t call it evil or wrong as that would be appealing to an objective moral standard. No your concept is both bankrupt, impractical, and dangerous.
• A. “Catholics, for example, take the pro-life thing much more seriously than Protestants do – not only do they oppose abortion, but also the death penalty, contraception, and most wars too.”
• A. Now this is just mere conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion. Really nothing of substance here as this is not accurate or authoritative.
• A. “It’s also worth pointing out that omniscient God wasn’t the clearest writer. The various denominations of Christianity are all reading translations of the same book, yet many disagree on how some verses should be intepreted.”
• A. True there are variations on a theme morally speaking, however, overall and quite consistently most points of morality actually have quite a broad consensus throughout the Judeo-Christian world. To suggest there is wildly different opinions and ideas on issues of morality is quite disingenuous.
• A. “So even if we had a book full of objective truths that wasn’t written by subjective people, it would still be read subjectively by people later. No matter how you look at it, critical thinking is the way to go! :-)”
• A. True people can twist obvious writings I suppose, but most moral communications are quite amazingly clear and well understood with broad consensus contrary to the picture you are suggesting. While I am most assuredly a fan of critical thinking I might be so bold to suggest if you are resting on moral relativism you are not utilizing critical thinking skills.
• A. Moral relativism is a self defeating position because it asserts a moral absolute that moral absolutes do not exist. How can that be? You cannot logically call what ISIS is doing wrong much less evil. You might not agree with it, but if moral relativism is the reality of things they have formed their own version of morality. For you to condemn their morality would be to undermine the very foundation of your own position. Without objective morality evil does not exist and it cannot be defined. I just hope for your sake that someone else who holds to subjective morality doesn’t think it’s moral to chop off your head if given the chance!
• B. I did say “lots of societies have reached those basic conclusions,” sleaze. Lots of them haven’t as well. There’s no conflict there.
• B. Plenty of Christians have also committed atrocities (Nazi Germany was 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic, you know). Most Catholics believe atrocities are still being committed anytime someone is executed. You’ve also seen the crazy things Muslims do too, and yet Islam claims both Jesus and Muhammed were prophets of God.
• B. Remember what I said about so many Christian denominations disagreeing over what is right, how pro-life they should be, etc? Each interpretation is clearly subjective!
• B. I appreciate your impassioned (and very polite! so rare on the internet!) defense of your objective truth, but we reach plenty of identical conclusions. And as far as I can tell, whenever I disagree with one of these objective rules, which really isn’t all that often, I can back it up with a rational reason that doesn’t include the phrase, “because ____ told me it was wrong.”
• A. ”I did say “lots of societies have reached those basic conclusions,” sleaze. Lots of them haven’t as well. There’s no conflict there”
• A. However, your assertion was that many societies have all come to the same basic morality suggesting that subjective morality reflects some sort of “self/community” preservation”, but when one surveys history it is obvious that morality is extremely subjective when no higher objective standard exists other then men’s concepts of right or wrong. This then stands to support my position not yours that when subjective morality is your basis there is no standard anything goes and you can never condemn or criticize any society for what they determine is moral or ethical such as ISIS. Do you disagree with this statement?
• A. “Plenty of Christians have also committed atrocities"
• A. Sure people claiming to be Christians have done bad things, but your assertion presupposes that there is an objective standard by which we can uate those things as evil or wicked. If we were to use your subjective moral position you could not say what the Nazis did was evil or wrong! Furthermore, I was pointing out that morally there is very broad consensus among JudeoChristians not Muslims.
• A. Muslims rely on a totally different standard based upon their holy books than Judeo-Christians do so those comparisons are not meaningful.
• A. “Remember what I said about so many Christian denominations disagreeing over what is right, how pro-life they should be, etc? Each interpretation is clearly subjective!”
• A. Other than the death penalty for criminals, I don’t think you find any orthodox belief or standard that is pro-death. Again, while people may interpret certain things differently, that does not mean there is not a truth present that would be objective in nature. Nevertheless, pointing out a very few instances of variation does not suggest that the standard for morality contained in the bible is in essence subjective. The truth is the biblical morality set forth is significantly consistent, widely excepted and enduring through time, cultures, and circumstances.
• A. "I appreciate your impassioned (and very polite! so rare on the internet!) defense of your objective truth, but we reach plenty of identical conclusions."
• A. Reaching “plenty of the same conclusions” does not somehow support subjective morality. If anything it supports biblical teachings that God has placed his laws upon man’s hearts so that they know morality, right from wrong.
• A. Interestingly I noted you really didn’t address what I can call the evil atrocities of ISIS? I have challenged you that you cannot call their actions evil or judge their morality as wrong or less than yours! Even your statement of Nazis committing atrocities, atrocities you say? By what standards is what they did evil or wrong? You see even though you argue for subjective morality, practically speaking you operate, in part, on objective moral standards unknowingly. Your own position traps you, that’s why I said subjective morality is self defeating and impractical. Thank you for your time….
• B. So we both use subjective reasoning and yet arrive at many of the same conclusions, which means we can probably assume those conclusions are objective? I’m on board with that. By my morals and yours, ISIS is wrong. We probably agree on lots of other things too!
• B. It only gets interesting when we disagree. For that, we’d probably have to toss out a few social issues until we find one where we’re on opposite sides. Then we patiently explain to each other why we believe what we do. We soon learn quite a bit about how each other’s minds work. Side note: Have you ever read “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt? It pertains to this topic, and I found it to be very illuminating
• A. No the conclusions are not objective and said nothing about reasoning. The standard for morality is objective big difference my friend. Pretty telling that you have to qualify calling ISIS wrong for cutting off heads and raping little girls wrong by OUR morality, but you can’t simply call what they are doing evil. Nice try at a Dodge, but how sad is it that you can’t really call beheadings and raping little girls evil? You know they are evil not by our morality, but by ANY morality, yet you cannot call it evil and hold onto subjective morality as a foundation. That is sad.
• A.I have read many books on morality, but not the one you listed. However, it is based upon a fallacious foundation of presuppositions that are demonstrably wrong if it is a defense for subjective morality. There is no way around it and I have debated against people for years. Even within your answers you dodged, qualified, and squirmed to answer question directly or explain contradictions within your own statement because there is no logically consistent explanation because moral relativism is a bankrupt concept logically speaking. CS Lewis explains this very well in his book Mere Christianity.