Originally posted by rwingett
There is no 'ultimate' weight to back up any non-theistic moral standard. There are only "utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive" reasons. Reasons which may change gradually over time. But these are sufficient. There is no 'ultimate' reason why anyone would conform to any rules. But there are may lesser reasons why they do so. Generally we obey it b demolished by anyone these days, but would require another post altogether.
Greetings, sir.
To take your points as best as I can:
There is no 'ultimate' weight to back up any non-theistic moral standard. There are only "utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive" reasons. Reasons which may change gradually over time. But these are sufficient.
I would have to ask "sufficient for whom?" I'm afraid I know some people and some cultures who would disagree with that. If by that you mean, “sufficient for you,” that is more sustainable. However, you have only your likings and dislikings to hold you up. Does materialism sustain you in hard times? In his parable “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” Nietzche tried to comfort the dying man with these words: "On mine honour, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing
of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!" Does this comfort you? If it does, then the subject has moved to the will and all that can be said is that the decision to accept or reject Christ is not an intellectual decision, but a moral one.
To the grieving person who has lost a loved one, atheism can only say, “Your loved one has ceased to exist utterly. You will never see them again, except in your memories. And when the universe has gone, even the memories will be destroyed.” By contrast, a transcendent view can say, “You have the hope of meeting them again. They have not ceased to be, they have merely moved on.” Romanticism? Maybe so, but I am a romantic. I admit it. However, I fail to find materialism comforting in the least.
The lack of any ultimate source or ultimate reason does not invalidate such a moral code.
I'm not sure what you mean by "invalidate," but I don't think it matters much. If you mean the strict definition of "removing from something the power to constrain," then this would be true if one could force people to do it. But there might very well be those who resist. For example, military might, propoganda, and the death camps were an effective way of enforcing Nazism, but many still fought against it even in the heart of Germany. As another example, many buddhist monks went so far as to immolate themselves in protest against the government during the Vietnam era. However, if you mean "removing something's power to convince," I'm afraid that it must be that way. Many remain unconvinced of relativism's veracity.
This could easily be levied against any belief system, including Christianity. However, Christianity has one great advantage. By giving people ultimate hope, it gives them the ultimate incentive.
People trying to change a society's moral code may succeed over time. A brief examination of human society clearly shows that they have indeed succeeded in doing so.
In the short term, yes. But in the long term, I would have to disagree. Civilizations come and go. History repeats. Carthage, Troy, and Ancient Rome are dust and ruins; and who is to say today’s civilization will not suffer the same fate?
You wrongly mistake this as a weakness in a moral code. I would counter that it is its strength. Such a code is perfectable. It is open to change when a new or better understanding of something comes to light. Such a code evolves along with its adherants' social and physical charecteristics to keep it from becoming hidebound and ossified.
Revolutions and reforms are also cyclical. Peace alternates with war. Enlightened self-interest remains self-interest.
Murder is wrong in every culture, without exception. What has changed over time is our definition of 'murder.' All societies make allowances for unavoidable or supposedly justified deaths, such as war, capital punishment, self defense, etc., but never for murder.
This is precisely my point. When the definition of something is always subject to change, reality itself can no longer be understood. As long as people hold to different definitions, nothing can be accomplished. What is murder for one may not be murder for another.
Many times past justifications are seen to be specious and we redefine and tighten our definition of murder, but murder itself is always wrong, everywhere.
What of those who feel that someone is in their way and wish to dispose of them? They would believe murder can be justified. They may be dead wrong, but that is what they believe. Timothy Mcvay felt he was justified and remained convinced of his position to the end. Society condemned him, but that didn’t stop him from believing it.
Your argument that biblical slavery is a kinder, gentler form of slavery is completely irrelevant. By today's standards, slavery of ANY kind is seen as being immoral.
The key phrase is “today’s standards.” You have already admitted that standards change. If society decides once again that slavery is proper it will then become “right” again. Relativism does not value one culture over another, so the idea of one culture being more “enlightened” than another is also relative.
The institution of slavery is immoral whether the slaves are treated kindly or whether they are whipped, it makes no difference. So if they started keeping slaves again in Israel, or Palestine, we would rightly be outraged. Why? Because times have changed. And our moral code has kept step with the changing times.
Again, what is this moral code based on that is binding? I am against slavery because God’s word tells me that I must be kind to my neighbor, but why can a materialist be against slavery except to say that he doesn’t like it? Masters and Johnson would say, “What’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good.” Salvation by survey.
If we cannot create a just society, as you claim, then why have any moral codes at all?
Nietzche would agree with you.
Perhaps we can't create a truly just society. But that shoudln't stop us from trying to create a more just society.
I agree; but the tragedy is that such efforts, if not based on anything substantive, are ultimately cold and empty.
Your question about the justification of destroying supposedly irredeemable groups is completely without basis. Opening the door to the admissibility of genocide is nothing but nothing but the widest possible application of moral relativism.
If genocide is to be allowed, then what could possibly be forbidden? Besides, who were the victims of the people drowned in in the great flood? The very people who were drowned? Criminal and victim, sinner and the innocent, all drowned equally. Where is your justice there?
I think you are raising a very sobering issue here and such things should never be approached without an alert mind coupled with a softened heart. However, since this entire thread is dealing with Christianity systemically and not attempting to find contradictions with other beliefs, we must make certain assumptions, most notably God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, the reality of absolute evil, and the belief in life beyond the grave. We may not all believe in those items, but unless you accept them as axioms, we cannot debate the alleged biblical contradiction. So, with these in mind, allow me to lapse into story for a moment (I do not mean this to be insulting, merely as a second-level philosophical illustration. Besides, I love story writing. Please bear with me).
Once there was a great king who loved and was loved by his people. He made just laws and gave of himself and his possessions freely, not denying any good thing. He was even granted great wisdom and foresight, knowing the future and the minds of all men, and all praised him for his wisdom and justice. But one day, there arose a people who hated this king and his kingdom. They burned, pillaged, terrorized, and befouled the people and their land. The people cried out for their king to save them.
As the king looked on these evildoers, he loved them as well, for He loved all peoples. He pled with them, sent messengers and letters to them asking for peace, and even came to them himself along with his grand army to protect his people from them. But the members of this terrible tribe only swore undying hatred for the king and his land and redoubled their efforts to pollute and savage everything in sight.
Looking into their hearts, the king new they would never change their ways, so, with tears in his eyes, he designed and built a prison from which no one could escape and had it built in a place that no one would find unless He wished it. He ordered his armies to subdue the evil ones and place them into the prison. And to this day, the land has been free of the evil.
I leave it to you to divine the meaning. Remember that, since this thread is discussing a contradiction, it assumed the bible speaks the truth in other areas. If one is a skeptic, to deny these truths is to render the objection invalid.
Humans are justified in doing many things without knowing their outcome. Lacking omniscience, we have to balance the rights of the actual mother against those of the potential future human. One clearly takes precedance over the other.
If the issue is purely one of the mother’s convenience and personal preference, can we really afford to take the chance that we can even know what’s best? Isn’t it safer to hedge our bets instead?
Besides, who is to say that the fetus would eventually turn into a thinking, reasoning human being?
Even Downs people can reason in their way. One does not have to be particularly intelligent to reason and think. My mother works with such people, and many of them have taught her some marvelous things while talking and interacting with her. To be honest, I rather enjoy their company.