Originally posted by FMFIf you believed.
The way I see it, no one is capable of deciding to believe in supernatural phenomena and beings that they do not find believable. I've no reason to doubt that I would be capable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than my own if I believed there was one that had given us moral laws.
Whether or not you believe isn't at issue. What is at issue is the irrationality of the idea that a moral law giver exists dependent on one's believing.
Believing in a self made moral code reduces morality to nothing less than a relativistic world view. It's not an absolute if the code doesn't apply universally. If a creator exists, then we are subject to His standards, and anything less is humanistic and subject to anyone's whim.
Originally posted by josephwOf course whether or not I believe is the issue if you are talking to me. I think the "moral law giver" you talk about is a figment of your imagination, your earnestness and the effect it has on the moral soundness of your behaviour notwithstanding. So I am unable to acknowledge this "moral law giver" you talk about because I have no reason to believe it exists.
Whether or not you believe isn't at issue.
Originally posted by josephwYou seem to think characterizing our different opinions ~ about the existence of the "moral law giver" you happen to believe in ~ as "irrationality" on my part is a 'debating point' that has some sort of traction with me. It doesn't.
What is at issue is the irrationality of the idea that a moral law giver exists dependent on one's believing.
Originally posted by josephwI believe our moral codes are the product of both nature and nurture. Your religious beliefs come under "nurture". My moral beliefs are undoubtedly influenced to some degree by my long experience of being a Christian, so it forms part of my "nurture" element too. If your belief in a "moral law giver" helps you to make sense of the world and helps you to make morally sound decisions, then good for you ~ and it's good for those around you too.
Believing in a self made moral code reduces morality to nothing less than a relativistic world view. It's not an absolute if the code doesn't apply universally.
Originally posted by FMFSo if no one higher being has given us any moral laws how do you explain your unwavering beliefs in certain moral truths such as rape is always wrong.
The way I see it, no one is capable of deciding to believe in supernatural phenomena and beings that they do not find believable. I've no reason to doubt that I would be capable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than my own if I believed there was one that had given us moral laws.
Originally posted by FMFYes you have but can you tell me why you believe that the particaular moral sensibilities you prefer to uphold are in fact true and why someone with a different preference of moral sensibilities would be wrong in their particular choice?
I've already told you what I believe to be the source of our moral sensibilities.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke to FetchmyjunkBingo.
Your tiresome tactic appears to be to repeatedly ask someone to admit something that 'you' have decided they believe, even when they have made their beliefs evident. (Perhaps in an attempt to 'wear them down' and win some kind of hollow victory).
Originally posted by FMF"Would you describe the "objective moral standard" as coinciding with the Christian beliefs you just so happen to have?"
Would you describe the "objective moral standard" as coinciding with the Christian beliefs you just so happen to have? What is your view about any "objective moral standard" that is different from the one you perceive and subscribe to?
Absolutely.
"What is your view about any "objective moral standard" that is different from the one you perceive and subscribe to?"
Different? How can that be? If standards of morality are objective, then any differences that appear between two or more standards render any standard obsolete in any practical terms. Logically, there can only be one absolute universally objective standard of morality.
The problem is, meaning the error in thinking, is that the mind tends to wander when faced with the dilemma caused by contrary or contradicting ideas. More than one "objective standard" does just that. It's an illusion that causes the mind to wander from rational thought, which in turn causes subjective thinking about that which is objective.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have given you plenty of explanations and plenty of examples and plenty of answers and plenty of arguments and plenty of reasons, most of which you have simply ignored and refused to discuss. I am not typing any stuff out again when it is here on this very thread and you have, for the most part, chosen not to engage it. If you want an idea of how I have arrived at my moral reasoning, what principles it encompasses, how I seek to apply it etc. etc. then I suggest you go back and read this thread.
Yes you have but can you tell me why you believe that the particaular moral sensibilities you prefer to uphold are in fact true and why someone with a different preference of moral sensibilities would be wrong in their particular choice?
Originally posted by FMFHow in your mind does building an argument that my moral standards are somehow my personal preference prove that yours aren't ?
I tried to discuss this with you post after post, page after page, earlier on this thread. You either didn't read numerous posts of mine or you deliberately ignored them.
Originally posted by josephwYes I am aware that you believe this and I am aware that you insist that it coincides with your personal opinions and coincides with the religion you happen to be an adherent of. I don't really see there's much to discuss about these assertions. You keep telling me that I must accept the supposedly "one absolute universally objective standard of morality" that you have decided there is, but that's all you've got. If you've been reading what I've written about my own perceptions of morality on this thread you'll already know that your insistence and your sincerity do not combine to add any weight to your assertions about the objectivity and universality of the things you believe in.
Logically, there can only be one absolute universally objective standard of morality.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou should have addressed that pages and pages ago when I tried to engage in you in a discussion about it. I'm not typing any of that stuff out again. Nor am I going to go back, locate it, and copy paste it for you.
How in your mind does building an argument that my moral standards are somehow my personal preference prove that yours aren't ?
Originally posted by FMFSo you agree that their views are just as valid as yours?
My belief that homosexuality is not immoral ~ something that I hold to be true ~ is not held to be a universal truth by others, indeed I would imagine that a majority of people in the world would perceive my claim to be untrue. It would be meaningless to them for me to go on and on and on about how my stance on the morality of homosexuality is a "universal truth ...[text shortened]... views govern my interactions with homosexuals or with people who think homosexuality is immoral.
Originally posted by FMFIt's free will, or volition. While environmental factors play a role in forming one's "beliefs", that concept, when taken to the extreme, erodes the idea that a moral code is objective and is given by the one that created the code.
I believe our moral codes are the product of both nature and nurture. Your religious beliefs come under "nurture". My moral beliefs are undoubtedly influenced to some degree by my long experience of being a Christian, so it forms part of my "nurture" element too. If your belief in a "moral law giver" helps you to make sense of the world and helps you to make morally sound decisions, then good for you ~ and it's good for those around you too.
One chooses to believe and adhere to a moral code not merely because of "nature and nurture" factors, but primarily because the standard of morality is objective and exists because it was given by our maker.
To think otherwise makes one nothing less than an automaton.