Questions on morality

Round and round we go...

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Round and round we go...

Give him a chance, he seems like he might actually answer my questions honestly.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you agree that it is always wrong for one human to kill another 'innocent' human child or another 'innocent' human being intentionally for that matter?

Yes, but you don't.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?

2. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions and personal preferences?

1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
Some combination of the morality of my peers, introspection, and critical thinking.

If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions and personal preferences?
I don't argue they are not subjective opinions, but imbued with reasonable intelligence, empathy for others, and the sound reasoning of my peers, I regard my opinions on such matters as being better than those who have the opinion torturing babies, say, is ok.

Btw (as an aside), since you follow the Bible and all - do you think there are any situations where it is morally right to, hmm ... I don't know ... instruct a person to sacrifice their only son (let's call him Isaac) as a burnt offering on some mountain?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
Some combination of the morality of my peers, introspection, and critical thinking.

If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are ...[text shortened]... person to sacrifice their only son (let's call him Isaac) as a burnt offering on some mountain?

1.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

2.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?

(With regards to the question you asked me, should I assume God does in fact exist or not?)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
1.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

2.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral stan ...[text shortened]... ?

(With regards to the question you asked me, should I assume God does in fact exist or not?)

1.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
As I said before, might makes right in this regard. As a species, our collective morality has evolved in such way that we generally regard nazi actions as abhorrent. I'm confident that I'll never spend any time with the small collection of people who have nazi-leanings. Btw, I'd hate to imagine myself in Biblical times, equipped with the morality of that time period.

2.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
As mentioned above, most of us do adhere to my (your) moral standard in this regard without even asking - because acting counter to the nazis is consistent with the pervading morality of this time period.

With regards to the question you asked me, should I assume God does in fact exist or not?
You can assume it for the sake of argument.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]1.If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
As I said before, might makes right in this regard. As a species, our collective morality has evolved in such way that we generally regard nazi actions ...[text shortened]... should I assume God does in fact exist or not?[/b]
You can assume it for the sake of argument.[/b]

As I said before, might makes right in this regard. As a species, our collective morality has evolved in such way that we generally regard nazi actions as abhorrent.

If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

As mentioned above, most of us do adhere to my (your) moral standard in this regard without even asking - because acting counter to the nazis is consistent with the pervading morality of this time period.

1. If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?

2.If you don't have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?

You can assume it for the sake of argument.

Ok so for the sake of this argument if God does exist, doesn't he stipulate what is right and wrong? If so, what would be the point of questioning his actions?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]As I said before, might makes right in this regard. As a species, our collective morality has evolved in such way that we generally regard nazi actions as abhorrent.

If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

As me ...[text shortened]... he stipulate what is right and wrong? If so, what would be the point of questioning his actions?

If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?
I don't have a non-subjective standard, never said I do.

1. If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
I ask myself first whether my common-sense consistent with the majority common-sense, if it is I wait for the other party to bring forth some argument that would cause me to question that position. If it isn't consistent with majority consensus (example of which being the belief in *some* sort of deity) then I suppose I put up the best fight I can, sit down, chew on it for a while, and weigh up the pros and cons of what I what I personally consider common-sense - if after this period of thought I cannot find any problems with my postion, and I cannot talk the other parties out of theirs then I have to walk away with the thought that the majority are wrong (kind of like how I think the Brexit/Donald Trump voters acted counter to common-sense btw).

2.If you don't have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?
This is (in different words) similar to a question you asked me earlier:
"If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?"
and my answer is the same: Some combination of the morality of my peers, introspection, and critical thinking.

Ok so for the sake of this argument if God does exist, doesn't he stipulate what is right and wrong? If so, what would be the point of questioning his actions?
Hmm I overlooked the fact you would substitute "God" for being some entity that is by defintion point of origin for morality (what makes you think it is ok to define it in these terms? - a general notion of deity need not have that property). But anyway, acknowledging my mistake, do you take issue with God's instruction to sacrifice Isaac? or is it all good in your view?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?
I don't have a non-subjective standard, never said I do.

1. If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contra ...[text shortened]... ke, do you take issue with God's instruction to sacrifice Isaac? or is it all good in your view?

1. Do you think the 'common sense' of the majority is always right?
2. Should your 'common sense' morals be followed by others because they are right?
3. If someone else used a combination of the morality of their peers, introspection, and critical thinking and reached a conclusion that was different to yours, why would you consider your morals to be correct and their morals to be incorrect?

Knowing what happened, I don't take issue with God's instruction, since it was to test his faith.