A Question of Morality (5 Viewers)

[Hist]

It's so sad that some people refuse to read the argument first before arguing against it.

He just said that you cannot remove contextuality and he gave examples of an action, although the same yet in different contexts is judged differently (killing).
That is what we have been trying to say. he is putting it in different terms but i dont get the connection between what he is saying objective morality is and what you are saying. I honestly don't think you know too

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

You don't honestly think the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally do you? You do understand that it serves as a moral lesson and not as an actual event in history yes?

I don't.

As a Christian, you should take it literally. Maybe not the apple part, but the getting to have moral knowledge part.

 

[rounder]

It just says that you can't prove moral objectivism and that morality is knowledge, just like Biology. Both of which are true, neither of which state that morality comes from god.

He also implis that objective morality is an undeniable reality, it would be hypocritical not to admit this. This does not at all contradict with a transcedent being producing these laws.

 

[rounder]

He just said that you cannot remove contextuality and he gave examples of an action, although the same yet in different contexts is judged differently (killing).
That is what we have been trying to say. he is putting it in different terms but i dont get the connection between what he is saying objective morality is and what you are saying. I honestly don't think you know too

He said he is a moral person without needing God to tell him what to do. That is not my argument, that is not anyone's argument in fact.

 

[Enron]

You don't honestly think the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally do you? You do understand that it serves as a moral lesson and not as an actual event in history yes?

The way religious scholars read it tends to vary. Some, myself included, read it as an allegory that shows man's ability/need to seek knowledge. Either way, if the theory of moral objectivism held true Adam and Eve would have known that the act of stealing the apple was immoral. Some could even argue that the advancement of knowledge comes not from interaction with god but interaction in ones environment. There are many ways of looking at the story not many help out moral objectivity.

 

[Enron]

You can independatly realize this can you not?

Independently realize right from wrong? Not immediately. Think about it. When you're born, God doesn't slip the thought of right and wrong into your mind. There isn't even any special god dust floating around to keep you from acting immoral.

You go out and experience your environment learning from your peers and your parents what is moral and what is not. God has nothing to do with it. If you aren't religious you learn right from wrong, the same thing if you worship another being.

 

[rounder]

I don't.

As a Christian, you should take it literally. Maybe not the apple part, but the getting to have moral knowledge part.

Not exactly. It does not have to symbolize man's demonic need for knowledge but rather man's demonic need to be greater, more powerful, and more potent than God. That's how I see it.

 

[rounder]

Independently realize right from wrong? Not immediately. Think about it. When you're born, God doesn't slip the thought of right and wrong into your mind. There isn't even any special god dust floating around to keep you from acting immoral.

You go out and experience your environment learning from your peers and your parents what is moral and what is not. God has nothing to do with it. If you aren't religious you learn right from wrong, the same thing if you worship another being.

Independantly realize morality is objective, that it does need a transcendent cause. No one is forced to believe this thus tehre is no conflict with free will.

 

[Enron]

Not exactly. It does not have to symbolize man's demonic need for knowledge but rather man's demonic need to be greater, more powerful, and more potent than God. That's how I see it.

How is man's need for knowledge demonic if the gain of knowledge in a moral sense is also divine?

 

[Enron]

He also implis that objective morality is an undeniable reality, it would be hypocritical not to admit this. This does not at all contradict with a transcedent being producing these laws.

How is it hypocritical to accept objective morality without any for of proof?

He more than contradicts himself by originally noting that morality comes from knowledge just like things you learn at school (biology is his example). Then he goes on to say that we have to accept objective morality as a reality because we just have to. It's like saying there is no reason the sky is blue accept that it is and you have to accept that no matter what.

Just because the fellow claims to be an atheist doesn't mean he's right.

 

[rounder]

How is man's need for knowledge demonic if the gain of knowledge in a moral sense is also divine?

What? No, that's not what I said. I said that it was NOT meant to be interpreted in the sense that knowledge was evil but should rather be taken in the sense that egoism was.

 

[Enron]

Independantly realize morality is objective, that it does need a transcendent cause. No one is forced to believe this thus tehre is no conflict with free will.

You're trying to have it every way. This is just getting silly now.

The ability to independently realize morality is up to the individual. If it existed whether or not people were able to realize it then it would be empirically detectable. Morality is not empirically detectable.

 

[rounder]

So morality if just a matter of opinion, yes? Thus it also be viable for me to believe in an objective moral law, right?

Right.

This would mean that objective morality and sucjective morality are both right. But if objective morality is right, then subjective morality cannot be right.

 

[Enron]

What? No, that's not what I said. I said that it was NOT meant to be interpreted in the sense that knowledge was evil but should rather be taken in the sense that egoism was.

Excuse me.

How the the need or want to gain knowledge be man evil? The attempt to gain knowledge isn't ungodly. Adam wasn't trying to run God's block he just wanted to gain knowledge other than what he had. He wasn't trying to be better than god merely better than himself.

 

[rounder]

You're trying to have it every way. This is just getting silly now.

The ability to independently realize morality is up to the individual. If it existed whether or not people were able to realize it then it would be empirically detectable. Morality is not empirically detectable.

Objective morality is not objective in the sense that everyone believes in it but rather is true regardless of whether people do or do not believe in it.

 

[Enron]

Objective morality is not objective in the sense that everyone believes in it but rather is true regardless of whether people do or do not believe in it.

Which is what I said.

If that were true we would see evidence, instead we see evidence every day that show us there is no objective morality.

 

[rounder]

Excuse me.

How the the need or want to gain knowledge be man evil? The attempt to gain knowledge isn't ungodly. Adam wasn't trying to run God's block he just wanted to gain knowledge other than what he had. He wasn't trying to be better than god merely better than himself.

Incorrect. Eve was tempted by the snake because she agreed with the snake that there should be no reason while God should know the secrets and mysteries of the world while they should just remain obediantly ignorant. Techincally, it implies man's will to rebel against God. This is the lesson in my opinion, that it is incorrect to strive to be above God or equal to God.

 

[rounder]

Which is what I said.

If that were true we would see evidence, instead we see evidence every day that show us there is no objective morality.

Really? Wouldn't you say raping a child is objectively immoral?

 

[Enron]

Incorrect. Eve was tempted by the snake because she agreed with the snake that there should be no reason while God should know the secrets and mysteries of the world while they should just remain obediantly ignorant. Techincally, it implies man's will to rebel against God. This is the lesson in my opinion, that it is incorrect to strive to be above God or equal to God.

Not really incorrect. To each his own. That's a rather Fundamentalist interpretation of the story though.

 

[rounder]

Not really incorrect. To each his own. That's a rather Fundamentalist interpretation of the story though.

To each his own indeed.