Originally posted by checkbaiterThat's exactly what those who reject the existence of God have. A system of morality based on subjectivity. As soon as someone who believes in a moral code instituted by God says something is wrong because God says so they are labeled a throwback.
Exactly, else anyone can decide what is moral or immoral.
In an atheist world man rules, God is dead and those who live by faith are the cause of the worlds problems.
Go figure. 🙄
Originally posted by josephwSo, not 'objective' in any sense that we customarily use the word, then. Just the subjective views of one particular God, rather than another.
It's "objective" in the sense that mankind neither created it nor defines it.
Or more precisely, your interpretation of the views of that one particular God. Views which are themselves subjective, given how many differing and conflicting interpretations exist.
So, not really objective at all in any sense.
Originally posted by josephw
That's exactly what those who reject the existence of God have. A system of morality based on subjectivity. As soon as someone who believes in a moral code instituted by God says something is wrong because God says so they are labeled a throwback.
In an atheist world man rules, God is dead and those who live by faith are the cause of the worlds problems.
Go figure. 🙄
As soon as someone who believes in a moral code instituted by God says something is wrong because God says so they are labeled a throwback.
It throws us all back at least as far as Plato, who ascribes these words to Socrates:
"We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. "
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Originally posted by SuzianneI am amazed if you would not be concerned if a God exacted vengeance in the same way on a nun of a different faith who had quietly lived her life working for charitable causes and shunning personal gain as he would on a child raping genocidal maniac.
/shrug
Sin is sin.
But Jesus did hint that intention goes a long way.
And that a God that could do so could be regarded as moral.
Originally posted by checkbaiterNo, you can create a consensus through debate and reasoning. Depending on the level of the consensus, you can enforce certain levels of behaviour through laws.
Exactly, else anyone can decide what is moral or immoral.
Better than choosing one religious text out of many and then adhering to it when you have no way of knowing that it is the one and only correct one.
Originally posted by josephwWhat of all the other religions and religious texts? Why not follow their moral compass?
That's exactly what those who reject the existence of God have. A system of morality based on subjectivity. As soon as someone who believes in a moral code instituted by God says something is wrong because God says so they are labeled a throwback.
In an atheist world man rules, God is dead and those who live by faith are the cause of the worlds problems.
Go figure. 🙄
Originally posted by kd2aczI try to take the best of what I have learned and read and combine it with my own musings.
For many, one's moral compass is their faith. For others a moral compass is values that are passed down from parents, grandparents, etc. (which may be faith based or not). Still others, a moral compass is more culturally based, or what is based on the given law were one lives. What do you claim to be your moral compass, is it any of the above or something else?
Originally posted by Suzianne
Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many more lives than they cost.
Truman had all the intelligence, including how many millions of Japanese died defending Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa, to tell him that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost tens of millions of Japanese lives, many of them civilians.
30 million vs. 330,000. You make the decision.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_opposed_the_Dropping_of_Atomic_Bomb_on_Hiroshima_Robert_Oppenheimer_or_general_Eisenhower
1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
3 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterActually all one need is a concept upon which to hang decisions of morality.
Exactly, else anyone can decide what is moral or immoral.
For example, the Golden Rule has been recognized as one such concept through the ages, across many cultures and within both theistic and secular schools of thought. This fact also belies the idea that morality is "completely subjective".
http://www.bahai.us/welcome/spiritual-concepts/oneness-of-god/
Baha'i Faith
“Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.”
…Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71…
Buddhism
“Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful.”
…Udana-Varga,5:18…
Christianity
“All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
…Matthew 7:12…
Hinduism
“This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others
which would cause you pain if done to you.”
…Mahabharata 5:1517…
Islam
“No one of you is a believer until he desires for
his brother that which he desires for himself”.
…Sunnah…
Judaism
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.
That is the law: all the rest is commentary”
…Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Zoroastrianism
“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto
another whatever is not good for its own self.”
…Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5…
http://www.uhj.net/the-golden-rule.html
CONFUCIANISM:
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
(Analects, 15:23)
"If one strives to treat others as he would be treated by them, he will come near the perfect life."
(Book of Meng Tzu)
WESTERN SCHOOLS:
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."
(Pythagorean)
"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us."
(Aristotle, from Plato and Socrates)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."
(Thales)
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."
(Pittacus)
"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own"
(Aristippus of Cyrene).
"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you"
(Isocrates)
TAO:
"Pity the misfortunes of others; rejoice in the well-being of others; help those who are in want; save men in danger; rejoice at the success of others; and sympathise with their reverses, even as though YOU WERE in their place."
"The sage has no interests of his own, but regards the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind, he is also kind to the unkind: for virtue is kind."
(T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien)
NATIVE AMERICAN:
"Love your friend and never desert him. If you see him surrounded by the enemy do not run away; go to him, and if you cannot save him, be killed together and let your bones lie side by side."
(Sur-AR-Ale-Shar, The Lessons of the Lone Chief)
"Do not kill or injure your neighbor, for it is not him that you injure, you injure yourself. But do good to him, therefore add to his days of happiness as you add to your own. Do not wrong or hate your neighbor, for it is not him that you wrong, you wrong yourself. But love him, for The Great Spirit (Moneto) loves him also as he loves you."
(Shawnee)
"Respect for all life is the foundation."
(The Great Law of Peace)
AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION:
"A SAGE is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. THEREFORE, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)
"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwAnd that is the most subjective view of all.
There is only ONE Creator/God. All others are either impostors or counterfeits.
The same logic applies to the existence of a moral code.
Had you been born in a different time and place, you would most certainly be saying this about another God/religion with as much sincerity and conviction.
As you cannot show objectively that your religion is the one correct one, you cannot say that the moral code that stems from this is objectively moral for this reason.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou're obfuscating.
So, not 'objective' in any sense that we customarily use the word, then. Just the subjective views of one particular God, rather than another.
Or more precisely, your interpretation of the views of that one particular God. Views which are themselves subjective, given how many differing and conflicting interpretations exist.
So, not really objective at all in any sense.
Do you not understand what "objective" means? Obviously not, since everything is subjective according to your interpretation of things.
Do you think you have an open mind? Concider the idea that someone exists that created you and all there is, and defines what it all means independant of your idea or interpretation of anything.