The bad thing about Christians

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said or implied a "majority vote" was sufficient to establish what the Natural Law is; you are grossly misrepresenting my position. I said that there is a Natural Law and the fact that human beings generally adhere to a certain set of similar moral principles is evidence of the existence of Natural Law. The components of the Natural Law ...[text shortened]... cision maker. Please re-read my posts as you seem to be making this mistake over and over again.

This is exactly what I was saying above when I differentiated between constitutive dependence on custom and evidential dependence on custom. The fact that a bunch of people agree that murder is wrong, and that this holds across times and cultures does not suffice for the truth of the claim that murder is wrong, but it is pretty good evidence that murder is wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Because DC posits the existence of a "gold standard", it is preferable in at least one aspect over secular NL - one does not have to resort to a majority vote to decide which actions are good and which are not.



[/b]

Most views postulate a gold standard of this sort. But that doesn't mean we can determine infallibly when some proposed mode of action concords with the God Standard. Your view is no better. How do you decide which instances of killing are murder? How do you decide which of the commands in the Bible are to be adhered to and which no longer apply? How are you to determine what God would say about embryonic stem cell research? None of these are addressed in scripture. So, you must try to reason your way to answers to these questions, you must consult those who know better than you, and read what your church says on the matter. We do the exact same thing, but realize that no set of rules can successfully codify all of morality. I can't decide if it is actual arrogance on your part, or merely ignorance, that leads you to believe that secular ethical theories are somehow worse off than theistic ethical theories when it comes to issues of objectivity and universality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said or implied a "majority vote" was sufficient to establish what the Natural Law is; you are grossly misrepresenting my position. I said that there is a Natural Law and the fact that human beings generally adhere to a certain set of similar moral principles is evidence of the existence of Natural Law. The components of the Natural Law ...[text shortened]... cision maker. Please re-read my posts as you seem to be making this mistake over and over again.

AFAICS, your position is:

1. There is a Unique Natural Law (UNL) common to all human beings.
2. That human beings generally adhere to a common set of principles is evidence of the existence of UNL.

One possible counter-position (based on my point (1)) would be:

1. Each human being has a personal natural law (PNL) within him as a result of his nature.
2. That human beings differ (and differ quite significantly, at times) on moral principles between cultures and historical eras is evidence of the existence of PNL.

Why is your position on UNL better than the counter-position (not necessarily mine!) on PNL? If you try to emphasise the common aspects of moral principles across cultures and times, the PNL ethicist can easily reply that there is no reason to suppose that the PNL of person A should be significantly different from that of person B since they are both humans. Indeed, this seems a more reasonable position to hold since we know that, even though no two humans are exactly alike, no two are completely different either. Plus if, as you say, NL is a property of our physical nature, then why shouldn't differences in physical natures (say, genetic code) between human beings effectively mean differences in NL?

If you reject the notion of PNL, then I will come on to why the determination of UNL will require some form of majority vote. And yes, I know you never said or implied it, but I think it is a logical consequence of your position.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
AFAICS, your position is:

1. There is a Unique Natural Law (UNL) common to all human beings.
2. That human beings generally adhere to a common set of principles is evidence of the existence of UNL.

One possible counter-positio ...[text shortened]... lied it, but I think it is a logical consequence of your position.

Nope, it's not. I suspect that in a hypothetical State of Nature that there would be rather few differences in moral principles between individuals. However, human beings are pushed and pulled by many different factors in a complex society that have little to do with reason. I do not agree, moreover, that there are large differences in cultures between basic moral principles; every society I know of makes it a crime to murder, rape steal, etc. etc. Can you cite any society that does not agree on these moral principles? And since the discussion started with genocide, can you cite any culture that believes the extermination of entire peoples is morally neutral? In fact, the only people saying it is are the Divine Command theorists on this site (if God commands it)!!

Originally posted by bbarr
This is a different sort of dependence on convention than the one above. ... This sort of dependence on convention we may call ‘constitutive dependence’. ...This second sort of dependence is evidential.

I wasn't saying that the two forms of dependence were the same. But I do argue that they both boil down to a human choice (either in the actor, as in NCR; or in the philosopher, as in Hedonistic Utilitarianism).

It doesn’t need to be self-evident.

Sorry, that should've just read "evident". 🙂

If you want to know how a sado-masochist interprets the CI, I need to know which version of CI you are referring to.

I meant, "Does it matter whether the s-m'ist has read Kant?"

That is because you don’t understand the Formula of Universal Law. What would the SM’s maxim of action be? You need to supply that before we can see whether it passes the universalization test, or whether it results in a contradiction in conception (and hence a perfect duty) or a contradiction in will (and hence an imperfect duty). I’ll go through this step by step with you, if you wish.

Could you give me an example of such a maxim(s)?

The Formula of Humanity doesn’t say that you ought to spread pleasure as you understand it. The point of the FH is that you ought to treat others as ends in and of themselves, and that means respecting their autonomy; their capacity to set their own ends. This is why it is a violation of the FH to deceive and coerce others, because you are usurping their control over the pursuit of their own ends. Giving somebody pain because you think it is pleasurable fails to take into account what they think is pleasurable, whether it is an end of their's that they experience pain

I could be wrong here, but wouldn't this principle also apply to instances of kindness or protection? I mean, suppose a person decided to hire a guard to watch over the street he lives in at night. Wouldn't this act usurp the control of his neighbours' control over the pursuit of their ends?

(I realise this is probably easily resolved once I get an idea of the maxim in application.)

There are a few points in your post (re: relativism of various ethical theories) that I'd like to return to, but I'll need a little time to formulate my thoughts properly.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I wasn't saying that the two forms of dependence were the same. But I do argue that they both boil down to a human choice (either in the actor, as in NCR; or in the philosopher, as in Hedonistic Utilitarianism).

Choice is irrelevant to the metaphysical issue of whether an ethical theory is relativistic or not. An ethical theory is relativistic just in case the truth-conditions of the moral claims it makes is relative to some agent or group. So, a view according to which the claim "murder is wrong" is true for subject S if and only if S believes that murder is wrong (Normative Individual Relativism), or a view according to which the claim "murder is wrong" is true for S if and only if S's culture says that murder is wrong (Normative Cultural Relativism), both relativize the truth conditions of some moral claim to a select group. Utilitarianism, virtue theory, Kantianism, etc. all will claim that moral claims are universally binding.

Originally posted by bbarr


[b]I wasn't saying that the two forms of dependence were the same. But I do argue that they both boil down to a human choice (either in the actor, as in NCR; or in the philosopher, as in Hedonistic Utilitarianism).

Choice is irrelevant to the metaphysical issue of whether an ethical theory is relativistic or not. An ethical theory is relativistic ...[text shortened]... m, virtue theory, Kantianism, etc. all will claim that moral claims are universally binding.

[/b]

I never argued (or even mentioned!) relativism with respect to secular ethical theories... 😀

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I never argued (or even mentioned!) relativism with respect to secular ethical theories... 😀

Then why were you asking about "Gold Standards"?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Doesn't Christ's words rule out 1,,,making 2 or 3 the only the only choices?

No, I do not believe the time frame is correct for that.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
Rejecting God is not the same thing as rejecting claims made by scripture.
Your opinion wouldn't help the victims of the evil people, especially since you have no way of knowing whether they were or weren't acting on God's command.

I agree, rejecting God is not the same thing as rejecting the claims
made by scripture. One of the big questions around God, is "who
and what is God?" Then we move into other specifics of, is this or that
God real? Are these scriptures pointing to the real God or not?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
It doesn't follow from God's being the creator of the world that he can dictate what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness is not established by fiat, any more than rules of logic are established by fiat. If God commands genocide sincerely, then God is morally in error. If God were to command rape sincerely, then God would be morally in error.

Do you think that if God is real, and that God set up the universe
to act the way it does, that God would have a clue about logic and
what should be right or wrong?
Kelly

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Two questions:

The Samaritan was not a christian and may have been a worshiper of idols, did he perform a moral act?

How does god communicate to you on moral issues not covered or forseen by the bible, eg, electrictity (is it the devils tool), medical treatment, assault weapons. ownership of handguns, democracy, science, global warming, environmental issues, genetic modifications?

I believe the Samaritan did a moral act, and every good and moral
righteous act will be rewarded.

God leads, guides, and teaches us in many ways, I imagine it will
depend on the person on how God does it since we are all different.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is the same old BS that the radical "Christians" peddle on this site and elsewhere: that human beings are vile, degraded garbage by their very nature. A billion acts of simple kindness refute this every day. The way we live our lives and love our families and friends refute this every day. Even higher animals act with more compassion in r ...[text shortened]... he great majority of the human race to eternal suffering and torment. They're totally demented.

I believe we are all sinners, you do not, fine. You may believe that we
are treating each other better and better every day. You may believe
that some good deads clear us of bad ones too? You may say that by
your standards everyone is great and God should not hold us
accountable for our bad acts, or that there are no bad acts, how ever
you want to word it. If its just you and I disagreeing no big deal, but if
God is real and does plan on judging us all, we should be aware of
what God wants. Disagreeing with me isn't a big deal, I'm no different
than anyone else, just a guy with opinions.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
Same immortal Being is speaking, isn't it? God certainly knew , even then what Jesus was going to say.
An evil is always an evil. anytime someone says God told me to do something, the test is simple, is it an evil?and if so ...[text shortened]... telling people to commit horrible atrocities isn't one on them.

I disagree with you here. There were different covenant setups
between God and man and those changed over time. Some things
were allowed, then they were not, some things were required then
they were not. Once eating meat was evil/sin, the rules on food
changed quite a few times. So I disagree once some act was sin, does
not mean it was always sin.

It is no different with us today in our lives. Depending on laws some
times things that were once forbidden are no longer, or the other way
around depending on the times and what we deem is required. It is
like most things depending on the context of events, times, and of
course the covenant we are talking about. The OT and the NT do not
have the same covenants in them, they are different.
Kelly

Originally posted by Alpha10
There are many reasons why it is wrong, and you know them. You just choose to be an asshole and argue with everything.

Genocide is wrong because there is NEVER a reason to kill anyone that doesn't deserve to be killed.

There are many reasons why it is wrong, and you know them. You just choose to be an asshole and argue with everything.

Genocide is wrong because there is NEVER a reason to kill anyone that doesn't deserve to be killed.

A reason can be because they all had blue eyes, a reason can be
because they all were eating with their right hands not their left,
a reason can be anything. What is it you are trying to say here, it
does seem to make much sense as written?
Kelly