Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk

This one appears validly constructed, but its actually either not valid or not sound because the only way I could justify P1 is if I already knew C meaning I have begged the question(formally invalid), or I have an unjustified premise.

I admit that I only have a ninth grade education, but that argument looks like a holy mess to me.

I guess that higher education was designed specifically to confuse me. If so... it's working.

 

[Neogaia777]

I admit that I only have a ninth grade education, but that argument looks like a holy mess to me.

I guess that higher education was designed specifically to confuse me. If so... it's working.

I don't know what he's talking about either.

And I think it's clear that I would probably have to do some more research/homework with my education/googling, etc.

I'm only high school level, and some college, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We get to know Him, there is none more worth knowing!

According to him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both are equally important.

I'm sure you believe that.

This is, as the well known Philosopher C.S. Lewis once said: "Nothing leading to Nothing." It's a logical oxymoron.

A logical oxymoron?

What part of it do you not understand?

The question of what God is capable of making?

Or the question of God being capable of moving something he made?

CS Lewis wasn't a philosopher of logic, was he?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's really not imagination. It's just comparative analysis.

Ahhh....comparison. Thankfully we never have to choose between two evils and try to consider which is lesser.

 

[Fervent]

I'd already done that. We didn't need you proposing a nonsensical argument. And I'm being generous in calling it that. It had the conclusion in the first premise...it was a mess.

No, you didn't present an argument at all. You produced a non-sequitor.

I wasn't making a moral argument. Just showing you that if premises are correct then it leads to a conclusion. Just think of the IS OUGHT to be an IF THEN. IF we want to reduce accidents we THEN have to reduce drink driving.

That;s not how arguments work. Premises being correct is necessary, but not sufficient.

I wasn't making a moral argument.

So what kind of argument were you making, then?

Well, wasn't it lucky I wasn't making a moral argument.

So then what was the relationship to moral truth? If it wasn't an moral argument, why did you draw a moral conclusion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahhh....comparison. Thankfully we never have to choose between two evils and try to consider which is lesser.

Maybe. But then again, what is considered "evil" depends upon who the authorized definer of ethics happens to be.

There could be some things that, with only momentary consideration, you and I wouldn't think of as being "evil," but God would.

And if the God of the Bible exists, then you and I, in those particular moments, would have an ethical dilemma to deal with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Self-evident ... how could a reasonable person hold otherwise?

Well it's self evident or it isn't. If it's morally self evident....why would they need to eat the fruit to understand that they're naked?

The story seems to be suggesting either God wasn't perfectly clear about the fruit....or perhaps the fruit was some other understanding....sentience itself perhaps.

The Truth in the story is substantive, beneath the form of the text, infallible and eternal.

It appears logically contradictory. Did they understand good and evil before they ate the fruit or not?

God did not punish us with utter separation.

Well I don't know who you're hanging out with....but God hasn't popped out of the bushes around my house anytime I've been alive.

Alienation as a medicinal is useful in bringing about at-one-ment ... as we see He did in the New Testament.

I understand that the story goes on to claim that....

This original sin of understanding morality is what they are atoning for, is it not?

Surely it's not disobeying God. We all do that in far worse ways.

That's almost exactly the Adam and Eve story:

1. "Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them"

Exactly. That way they can understand them....before they risk any transgression and the consequences of our judgment.

The explanation has to be understood. Sometimes it's difficult for a young child....or someone who doesn't speak the language...right?

1. They willfully disobey the norms (important step excluded above)

To do so willfully requires that understanding. You're not merely suggesting a course of action as advice....you're describing a relational expectation in behavior. It's not, for example, a suggestion because the fruit is bitter and unpleasant. It's an explanation of acceptable and forbidden....good and bad....because of where they are and who makes the rules....right?

1. Then they suffer the effects of their disobedience

Indeed....which seems rather unjust without any understanding.

In the story there are two trees in the garden. Adam and Eve were first given the fruit of the tree of life then follows the explanation.

Right....they'd need to be alive to get the explanation. It's unclear how they're eating while dead but regardless....

They were not punished for understanding.

No? Then why couldn't they eat the fruit? Why was it forbidden?

They alienated themselves from God through their free act of disobedience.

It's unclear why obedience is good and disobedience is bad if they don't understand these things beforehand.

Made in God's image means, unlike the brute animals, Adam and Eve possessed both reason and free will. Having reason, they were not completely ignorant. Having free will, they were open to sin.

Well hold on there partner....let's consider this part...


Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent says the tree will give them knowledge that God has. God says that if they eat the fruit they will die.

Who told the truth here?

Eating the fruit didn't kill them. Eating the fruit gave them "knowledge" or understanding of good and evil.

The serpent appears to be honest....God appears to be lying.

If we are indeed filled with sin and love lying and dislike honesty (especially that which is undesirable) it makes sense that God would lie to us as we are made in his image.

We simply shouldn't believe every word of an evil lying God. He's clearly trying to cover his own tracks in this story.

How else can you explain this next part.....

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Is that an all knowing God pretending to not know what happened, who did it, and where they are???

Clearly an act.

After one reads the rest of the story, in the New Testament, through the God-man Jesus Christ, atonement is complete.

How does that work again? You gotta refresh my heathen ears...they haven't read the story in a while. God shows up as Jesus, reminds us we're all scum, sacrifices a three day weekend before skipping back up to heaven?

1. Hard to see that as a sacrifice. I think my time is precious too...and while giving up three days may be a big deal to me, God is eternal isn't he? He's got all sorts of time.

2. *Almost forgot this* the nature of the sacrifice (temporary and easy) reflects the nature of nature of the salvation, doesn't it? A mere proclamation of faith isn't much to undo a life of evil.

Well, science claims to comprehend the relationship. Neither time, nor space, nor matter can physically exist independently of the others.

Also time and space seem intertwined to such a degree it's often called timespace. Matter is energy. Science makes claims about these relationships but I don't think there's anyone claiming a fully clear understanding.

So, there is no passage of time before God created the universe. So, God in eternity necessarily exists outside time.

You see how you used "before" in relationship with god creating the universe?

That doesn't really mean anything without a time before the universe.

Or in other words....

If time is indeed dependent upon the universe, there's no such thing as "before the universe".

God wills to be intimate with those made in His image. But mankind likewise needs to freely will the same. We are slow learners. The story is not completely over for you and me so stay tuned.

Perhaps he does...I'm only having a little fun with you by suggesting that the passages of Genesis can be interpreted as a sort of clue to a contradictory nature to God. It's not that serious. We can continue if you like....but I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe. But then again, what is considered "evil" depends upon who the authorized definer of ethics happens to be.

The author and perfector of our faith.

There could be some things that, with only momentary consideration, you and I wouldn't think of as being "evil," but God would.

Or vice versa.....and not only God, but everyone else too.

And if the God of the Bible exists, then you and I, in those particular moments, would have an ethical dilemma to deal with.

Well you would. I don't know what God believes is good (just some of what Christians have told me and what I can recall from the bible). I won't tell you that I don’t ever consider these normative social values... because they are pervasive in much of our society. As such, regardless of whether or not I genuinely agree with these moral norms, it's in my best interests to understand them...and consider them carefully if I'm about to transgress one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's precisely my point, we don't have any reports of reality without a subjective experience.

Sure....it's unclear what that report might sound like or come from.

So while we may intuit the idea of a reality that is independent of all subjective experience, we don't know that one exists.

No....we don't "know" it exists (if you mean "know with absolute certainty").

I fully agree.

What I am saying though is in order to talk about what is true....we must assume it exists.

And I'm not just talking about a radical skeptical position, I'm depending on physics because the reality of observer-dependent phenomenon.

Not certain what you mean here. The "observer effect" of the double slit experiment is probably the most misinterpreted experiment in physics.

The only interpretations of quantum physics that doesn't introduce the subjective into the physical system are Von Neuman.

Again, to make the claim this is true in any sense of the word true requires the assumption that am objective reality exists.

The shared physical space need not be entirely subjectively independent, it only needs to be shared and internally consistent.

Again...the claim that this is true requires the assumption of an objective reality.

Objective truth is not the only kind of truth

I'm going to give you a chance to respond to the above before addressing this.

 

[Fervent]

Sure....it's unclear what that report might sound like or come from.

Yet we refuse to consider the proposition that there is no such thing and instead insist that we know that nature is physical because..science! Objectve truth! We all agree, we've come to an agreement so this is what objective truth is. Except that's not objective truth, it's intersubjective truth. Which is all science is capable of producing, consensus truth. So long as nobody questions it, we don't have to examine our foundations. Hey! Don't question the science! My metaphysical hypothesis about reality is scientific! I know what nature is at a fundamental level! And that is physical!

No....we don't "know" it exists (if you mean "know with absolute certainty").

I mean with any degree of real certainty. Intersubjective truth is no more objective than subjective truth, and so long as we begin with a metaphysical principle about what nature fundamentally is we can't get to it. Our metaphysics won't let us. Shut up philosopher, listen to the science.

I fully agree.

What I am saying though is in order to talk about what is true....we must assume it exists.

Without going any further than to assume that it exists. We can't presume that it is what it appears to be to our senses any more than we can assume that it is what it appears to be to our thoughts.

Not certain what you mean here. The "observer effect" of the double slit experiment is probably the most misinterpreted experiment in physics.

I agree, but I simply mean that measurments and observations, regardless of how they are defined, throw a spanner into the works that doesn't seem to be sortable other than to define observation and measurement in a way that doesn't comport to commonsense understandings of the terms.

Again, to make the claim this is true in any sense of the word true requires the assumption that am objective reality exists.

An objective reality, sure. But an objective-subject is just as objective as an objective world that is empty of mind.

Again...the claim that this is true requires the assumption of an objective reality.

No, all that it requires is to accept that there is something that exists external to me. Objective substantial reality? Objective-subjective reality? Don't really know what it is, I just know it's not me and I'm not it.

I'm going to give you a chance to respond to the above before addressing this.

When I say that, I don't mean that truth doesn't have to be objective. What I mean is that when we're talking about truth, we have to recognize that there are strata. There are subjective truths, intersubjective truths, and an objective truth. The stratification is at the level we are able to attain, not refering to the idea of truth itself.

 

[Astrid]

If you looked at the Greek and Hebrew you'd find different words used for each.

For Christians, the Bible is the dictionary in theological situations.

He is as immortal as you are, no more no less. And yes, he's powerful, but God can turn His power of like you turn of the sink.

As far as Him having the attributes of what other religions call god, you're quite right. For a Christian is this not surprising since we beleive that demons are behind and represented by all pagan Gods.

Firstly, because the Bible says so.

But also, if we have multiple equal powers in the universe, who can we trust? How can we know that God will protect his people eternally no matter what? We can't. He might be overruled.

I think you are here referring to the Catholics. They are, (no offense to them) false Christians, and do not follow what the Bible say as the only standard. No one but God should be prayed to. Anything more is idolatry.

” Because the bible says so” carries no weight with me.

Nor with christians, for lo
they agreeth not what it says.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Self-evident ... how could a reasonable person hold otherwise?

Well it's self evident or it isn't. If it's morally self evident....why would they need to eat the fruit to understand that they're naked?

The story seems to be suggesting either God wasn't perfectly clear about the fruit....or perhaps the fruit was some other understanding....sentience itself perhaps.

The Truth in the story is substantive, beneath the form of the text, infallible and eternal.

It appears logically contradictory. Did they understand good and evil before they ate the fruit or not?

God did not punish us with utter separation.

Well I don't know who you're hanging out with....but God hasn't popped out of the bushes around my house anytime I've been alive.

Alienation as a medicinal is useful in bringing about at-one-ment ... as we see He did in the New Testament.

I understand that the story goes on to claim that....

This original sin of understanding morality is what they are atoning for, is it not?

Surely it's not disobeying God. We all do that in far worse ways.

That's almost exactly the Adam and Eve story:

1. "Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them"

Exactly. That way they can understand them....before they risk any transgression and the consequences of our judgment.

The explanation has to be understood. Sometimes it's difficult for a young child....or someone who doesn't speak the language...right?

1. They willfully disobey the norms (important step excluded above)

To do so willfully requires that understanding. You're not merely suggesting a course of action as advice....you're describing a relational expectation in behavior. It's not, for example, a suggestion because the fruit is bitter and unpleasant. It's an explanation of acceptable and forbidden....good and bad....because of where they are and who makes the rules....right?

1. Then they suffer the effects of their disobedience

Indeed....which seems rather unjust without any understanding.

In the story there are two trees in the garden. Adam and Eve were first given the fruit of the tree of life then follows the explanation.

Right....they'd need to be alive to get the explanation. It's unclear how they're eating while dead but regardless....

They were not punished for understanding.

No? Then why couldn't they eat the fruit? Why was it forbidden?

They alienated themselves from God through their free act of disobedience.

It's unclear why obedience is good and disobedience is bad if they don't understand these things beforehand.

Made in God's image means, unlike the brute animals, Adam and Eve possessed both reason and free will. Having reason, they were not completely ignorant. Having free will, they were open to sin.

Yet still ignorant of morality?

Mankind was never completely exiled from God. The Old Testament provides the evidence.

After one reads the rest of the story, in the New Testament, through the God-man Jesus Christ, atonement is complete.

Well, science claims to comprehend the relationship. Neither time, nor space, nor matter can physically exist independently of the others. So, there is no passage of time before God created the universe. So, God in eternity necessarily exists outside time.

God wills to be intimate with those made in His image. But mankind likewise needs to freely will the same. We are slow learners. The story is not completely over for you and me so stay tuned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yet we refuse to consider the proposition that there is no such thing and instead insist that we know that nature is physical because..science! Objectve truth! We all agree, we've come to an agreement so this is what objective truth is. Except that's not objective truth, it's intersubjective truth.

I think you mean intersubjective agreement.

Which is all science is capable of producing, consensus truth. So long as nobody questions it, we don't have to examine our foundations. Hey! Don't question the science! My metaphysical hypothesis about reality is scientific! I know what nature is at a fundamental level! And that is physical!

Well perspective hasn't put a man on the moon yet....it's difficult to argue with results.

I mean with any degree of real certainty.

Well I would disagree then.

Intersubjective truth is no more objective

Intersubjective agreement isn't all that's in science you know....

Without going any further than to assume that it exists. We can't presume that it is what it appears to be to our senses any more than we can assume that it is what it appears to be to our thoughts.

Again, I would have to disagree...intersubjective agreement of the senses exists. I can never know if you agree with a thought. I can only take your word for it.

I agree, but I simply mean that measurments and observations, regardless of how they are defined, throw a spanner into the works that doesn't seem to be sortable other than to define observation and measurement in a way that doesn't comport to commonsense understandings of the terms.

I'm sorry....you're getting a little too metaphorical. What spanner are we throwing into what works?

An objective reality, sure. But an objective-subject is just as objective as an objective world that is empty of mind.

Example of an objective subject?

No, all that it requires is to accept that there is something that exists external to me.

Sure, and independently of you.

Or rather...independently of your ability or inability to perceive it.

If that helps.

When I say that, I don't mean that truth doesn't have to be objective.

Ok.

What I mean is that when we're talking about truth, we have to recognize that there are strata.

Ok.

There are subjective truths, intersubjective truths, and an objective truth.

I'll agree there are subjective truths but we cannot know them by any means I'm aware of.

Intersubjective truths is an interesting idea....I certainly understand intersubjective agreement, but it's unclear what an intersubjective truth is.

And I hope it's obvious what I mean by objective truth.

When I categorize truths...I tend to along the strata I think is most important to people in general. I'm always speaking about objective truths since I don't know how we can demonstrate or perceive a subjective truth....and I'm unfamiliar with your idea of intersubjective truths.

There are happy truths. There are unhappy truths aka ugly truths. There are indifferent truths. There are difficult truths (think something so emotionally unsatisfactory that you'd reject it regardless of any evidence or logic) and sometimes there are dangerous truths (those which probably shouldn't be told simply from the risk of catastrophe that can result).


.

The stratification is at the level we are able to attain, not refering to the idea of truth itself.

Ok....well I'm curious about the idea of an intersubjective truth. I have a conceptualization of subjective truths I simply cannot describe a way to know them....and then there's objective truth which can be approached pretty closely, depending upon the method, but rarely obtained.

 

[Fervent]

I think you mean intersubjective agreement.




Well perspective hasn't put a man on the moon yet....it's difficult to argue with results.





Well I would disagree then.





Intersubjective agreement isn't all that's in science you know....





Again, I would have to disagree...intersubjective agreement of the senses exists. I can never know if you agree with a thought. I can only take your word for it.




I'm sorry....you're getting a little too metaphorical. What spanner are we throwing into what works?




Example of an objective subject?




Sure, and independently of you.

Or rather...independently of your ability or inability to perceive it.

If that helps.



Ok.




Ok.




I'll agree there are subjective truths but we cannot know them by any means I'm aware of.

Intersubjective truths is an interesting idea....I certainly understand intersubjective agreement, but it's unclear what an intersubjective truth is.

And I hope it's obvious what I mean by objective truth.

When I categorize truths...I tend to along the strata I think is most important to people in general. I'm always speaking about objective truths since I don't know how we can demonstrate or perceive a subjective truth....and I'm unfamiliar with your idea of intersubjective truths.

There are happy truths. There are unhappy truths aka ugly truths. There are indifferent truths. There are difficult truths (think something so emotionally unsatisfactory that you'd reject it regardless of any evidence or logic) and sometimes there are dangerous truths (those which probably shouldn't be told simply from the risk of catastrophe that can result).


.


Ok....well I'm curious about the idea of an intersubjective truth. I have a conceptualization of subjective truths I simply cannot describe a way to know them....and then there's objective truth which can be approached pretty closely, depending upon the method, but rarely obtained.

Let me ask you a question, if atheists have so much knowledge how come when they're asked to provide it the best they seem to be able to muster is to plead ignorance? Where is this knowledge, and why must they depend on reasoning circularly by assuming causal closure of the physical and then presenting all the physical facts they've discovered? You ask me where is my God I boast about, I ask you where is this knowledge you boast about? Why should I be the one providing reasons, if you're the one who's supposed to be rational?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me ask you a question, if atheists have so much knowledge

I don't see atheists as some unusual repository of information.

how come when they're asked to provide it the best they seem to be able to muster is to plead ignorance?

This seems like it's directed at someone....

Did you ask me something that I forgot to answer?

More generally....

Is that a bad thing? If someone doesn't know something....surely you're not upset about them admitting to it?

Where is this knowledge, and why must they depend on reasoning circularly by assuming causal closure of the physical and then presenting all the physical facts they've discovered?

I try my best to avoid circular reasoning but I don't know what you're talking about with the "causal closure" and presentation of physical facts.

I'm admitting to not knowing what you mean here despite you just telling me that you dislike "pleading ignorance".

If you want me to take a stab at explaining something difficult that I'm very uncertain about....just say so....but don't expect me to defend an idea I came up with on the spot.

You ask me where is my God I boast about, I ask you where is this knowledge you boast about? .

Did I boast about knowledge?

Why should I be the one providing reasons, if you're the one who's supposed to be rational?

I'm detecting some defensiveness. I thought we were having a pleasant exchange.

Tell you what....ask me something about morality and I'll give you my best explanation.

Sound fair?

 

[Fervent]

I don't see atheists as some unusual repository of information.




This seems like it's directed at someone....

Did you ask me something that I forgot to answer?

More generally....

Is that a bad thing? If someone doesn't know something....surely you're not upset about them admitting to it?




I try my best to avoid circular reasoning but I don't know what you're talking about with the "causal closure" and presentation of physical facts.

I'm admitting to not knowing what you mean here despite you just telling me that you dislike "pleading ignorance".

If you want me to take a stab at explaining something difficult that I'm very uncertain about....just say so....but don't expect me to defend an idea I came up with on the spot.




Did I boast about knowledge?



I'm detecting some defensiveness. I thought we were having a pleasant exchange.

Tell you what....ask me something about morality and I'll give you my best explanation.

Sound fair?

Sorry, I'm in a weird mental place today.

I think you mean intersubjective agreement.

Yeah, that works too.

Well perspective hasn't put a man on the moon yet....it's difficult to argue with results.

The issue isn't perspective, it's about unjustified assumptions. There is an objective truth, and if we dig deep enough there is a ground floor. God cannot not exist, because existence is in His nature. It's literally impossible, so the question isn't does God exist but what God is like. This doesn't preclude science at all, it just means that if we're truly interested in what is objectively true we have to start at First Principles.

Well I would disagree then.

Science can never escape the subjective understanding of the most intelligent human being, or at least not much beyond that. Reason can't take us to the promised land, at least not from science, because it begins by settling for the universe as the thing that must be true rather than digging all the way to the thing that is true by definition. Science settles for physical, but reality is deeper than that. There is only one objective truth, and it's not the universe.

Intersubjective agreement isn't all that's in science you know....

My issue isn't with science principally, but with the metaphysics of science. Taken the universe as the foundational brute fact. Physical reality, but not reality proper.

Again, I would have to disagree...intersubjective agreement of the senses exists. I can never know if you agree with a thought. I can only take your word for it.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, because it's not whether you agree with a thought but reality as it exists in the abstract. The world of the mental, which is just as real as the physical substance of our bodies but physics must deny as truly real.

I'm sorry....you're getting a little too metaphorical. What spanner are we throwing into what works?

If we have to define observor and measurement in a way in which it no longer resembles our conception of these things we lose semantic coherence. Nobody understands what an observor without consciousness is, so how can we say that such a thing is possible? It's somethng that we have no real concept for, so it's not really explanatory. It's just words that are bound to lead to confusion.

Example of an objective subject?

God

Sure, and independently of you.

Within which I move and breath and have my being. That reality is God.

Or rather...independently of your ability or inability to perceive it.

Yep. The necessary truth that exists by its own necessity. God.

If that helps.

Ok.




Ok.




I'll agree there are subjective truths but we cannot know them by any means I'm aware of.

Intersubjective truths is an interesting idea....I certainly understand intersubjective agreement, but it's unclear what an intersubjective truth is.

And I hope it's obvious what I mean by objective truth.

The truth that rests at the bottom of reality. Science promises to get to it, but it can't because science begins with an unjustiified assumption and then refuses to consider it's validity so long as it keeps producing physical facts. But all you'll ever get are physical facts until science gives up the idea that physical reality is the substrate. Science isn't approaching the truth, because it can never go deeper than it's opening assumption.

When I categorize truths...I tend to along the strata I think is most important to people in general. I'm always speaking about objective truths since I don't know how we can demonstrate or perceive a subjective truth....and I'm unfamiliar with your idea of intersubjective truths.

There are happy truths. There are unhappy truths aka ugly truths. There are indifferent truths. There are difficult truths (think something so emotionally unsatisfactory that you'd reject it regardless of any evidence or logic) and sometimes there are dangerous truths (those which probably shouldn't be told simply from the risk of catastrophe that can result).

Yeah, I suppose we could categorize truth in all sorts of ways.

.


Ok....well I'm curious about the idea of an intersubjective truth. I have a conceptualization of subjective truths I simply cannot describe a way to know them....and then there's objective truth which can be approached pretty closely, depending upon the method, but rarely obtained.

So long as science assumes that physical is the foundation, it will never be able to approach objective truth. God is the ground floor, and God is objective truth. Science is just the latest tower of Babel man has built in an attempt to get at Him. We're fast approaching the point where science will declare that man has no mind, and cut off its own legs. God is dead, man shortly followed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The author and perfector of our faith.

....................................................... yes. "Our faith," assuming we're talking Christianity here, of course.

Or vice versa.....and not only God, but everyone else too.

It's those "vice versa" issues that most annoy me......................that is, when I see them manifested cavalierly among "everyone else" without much of anything in the way of deep thought on the matter. Then again, I don't expect everyone to be able to study Philosophy (i.e. ETHICS and other stuff) and achieve a significant degree of understanding and familiarity with the various substantive issues involved.

However, I do expect people to realize that my main axiom is true ................... "no one human knows everything," even where ETHICS is the main focus. But by golly, I keep running into so many, many people who seem to eschew that axiom and claim that where morality and ethics is concerned, they somehow do indeed know, and they do so on what seem to me to be from such paltry epistemological grounds, too (those grounds referring often to some amorphous phenomenon called "common sense.")

Tsk, tsk!

Well you would. I don't know what God believes is good (just some of what Christians have told me and what I can recall from the bible). I won't tell you that I don’t ever consider these normative social values... because they are pervasive in much of our society. As such, regardless of whether or not I genuinely agree with these moral norms, it's in my best interests to understand them...and consider them carefully if I'm about to transgress one.

If you don't know that what "God believes" or "Jesus believes" is good, then it's time to learn how this is the case, maybe? I mean, for my part, I like to imagine you as a good person, Ana, on his way to eternal life in Christ, full of actual moral wisdom by which to alight upon a public forum and doll out what is much needed among the patrons.

 

[Larniavc]

P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk

You have the conclusion in the premise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahhh....comparison. Thankfully we never have to choose between two evils and try to consider which is lesser.

I'm not even understanding your insinuation here, Ana. But go ahead and spell out the specific example, or examples, you have in mind, and I'll see if my intellectual, Philosophically and Sociologically educated mind will agree with the extent I need to be thankful.