Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

Sure, I agree.

Huh?

Is your enjoyment of an experience intrinsic to you?

Or maybe a better way to ask is: Is your enjoyment a property of yourself?

 

[Bradskii]

No, that isn't absolute morality. Morality would still be relative to circumstances.

In a hypothetical scenario, where we know all of the circumstances, is it possible to make a correct determination?

I'm not trying to avoid the question, but how do you actually tell a correct determination from an incorrect one? If you have a method which is applicable to all problems then we can use it to make a correct one.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not trying to avoid the question, but how do you actually tell a correct determination from an incorrect one? If you have a method which is applicable to all problems then we can use it to make a correct one.

Is it even possible for such a method to exist? I say no, that even with hypothetical omniscience, there cannot be such a method. Even with hypothetical omniscience, there cannot be a way to make a correct determination on what is moral. What say you?

 

[Moral Orel]

Is your enjoyment of an experience intrinsic to you?

Or maybe a better way to ask is: Is your enjoyment a property of yourself?

Enjoying things is something that I do. I don't really know how I would ever use "enjoyment" to form a true statement. The same way I can't fathom how to use "good" to make a true statement.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You apparently decided, unilaterally, that I'm not allowed to learn what others think. So, now you're just being rude, about something that had absolutely nothing to do with my questions to the OP.

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken, as you did indeed ask the questions in post 1860. Would you like them answered, or do you choose to withdraw them?

Obviously.
Otherwise you would have understood that my questions were not directed to you.
So, let's do it this way....

I had absolutely no idea you existed until you posted your comment. So there's no way I could have known anything you would think.

And yet in post 1890 you assumed I knew nothing about why YHVH's opinions were so weighty.

There's no way you could have known... unless you asked. Which you chose not to.
Who's responsible for that decision?

Now, if you're actually interested in having a conversation that you are not in control of, by all means please continue. But if you actually think you have a right to control what others think and say, please be an adult and step off.

You've been asking a lot of questions -- and getting quite testy when people answer them... seemingly because "you weren't talking to them" -- and now you complain about others allegedly seeking to control the discussion.

I admire your efforts to re-read the Bible; it's a noble and fulfilling pastime. Perhaps we can resume this discussion after you get to Matthew 7:5? You might find it enlightening.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it even possible for such a method to exist? I say no, that even with hypothetical omniscience, there cannot be such a method. Even with hypothetical omniscience, there cannot be a way to make a correct determination on what is moral. What say you?

I agree. There are no doubt acts that any sane person would deem immoral. But a simple agreement isn't good enough. I'd use harm as the main determinant. But I'd also consider the greater good. And I'll end up with my personal opinion on the matter.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, I'm not much of an Old Testament guy myself. But I've taken the thread slightly off topic (although quite a few people will claim an act such as lying is contrary to God's wishes and is therefore always wrong).

God's wishes (as codified in the Ten Commandments) only prohibit bearing false witness (lying) against "thy neighbor" -- that leaves no small amount of wiggle room regarding strangers and enemies.

Genesis 20: Abraham notices Pharaoh eyeing his wife, Sarah, so, in order to smooth things along, he introduces him to his "sister." Pharaoh is pleased; no word on Sarah's thoughts about the arrangement.
Genesis 26: Abraham's son Isaac tells the same lie to a different Pharaoh.
Exodus 3: Moses demands that (yet another) Pharaoh let his people go... but only for 3 days so they can all go into the wilderness for a religious ritual... after which he promises that they'll all come back and be good little slaves.

Apparently, it's not wrong to lie to Pharaohs.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, it's not wrong to lie to Pharaohs.

No lusting either.

'Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread...'

— Proverbs 6:25-26

I'm not going to comment further...except to suggest that Rodney Dangerfield could have got 5 minutes out of that.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree. There are no doubt acts that any sane person would deem immoral. But a simple agreement isn't good enough. I'd use harm as the main determinant. But I'd also consider the greater good. And I'll end up with my personal opinion on the matter.

What I want to know is if it's even possible, in any hypothetical way, to make a correct determination. If you suddenly found yourself perfectly rational, with no likes, dislikes, preferences, feelings, etc. Could you determine things correctly then? I still say no. What say you?

If at any point you want to agree but need to add something to the effect of, "Okay, sure, hypothetically if we invoke magical omniscience and freedom from all personal preferences, then and only then, could a correct determination be made, but that hypothetical scenario isn't possible for humans in the real world" then that's fine.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No lusting either.

'Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread...'

— Proverbs 6:25-26

Don't tell Solomon -- he had a lot to sing about on the topic.

I'm not going to comment further...except to suggest that Rodney Dangerfield could have got 5 minutes out of that.

...probably something involving crust and crumbs.

 

[Bradskii]

What I want to know is if it's even possible, in any hypothetical way, to make a correct determination. If you suddenly found yourself perfectly rational, with no likes, dislikes, preferences, feelings, etc. Could you determine things correctly then? I still say no. What say you?

If at any point you want to agree but need to add something to the effect of, "Okay, sure, hypothetically if we invoke magical omniscience and freedom from all personal preferences, then and only then, could a correct determination be made, but that hypothetical scenario isn't possible for humans in the real world" then that's fine.

It's not possible. Because it comes down to a personal decision. Which does not mean that we should treat someone else's decision as being valid and 'correct for them' so we must therefore allow it (which is a claim that more than a few Christians will level at anyone who declares that there is no absolute morality). If my neighbour thinks that beating his wife is morally valid then I'm not going to shrug my shoulders and ignore her cries for help.

 

[Bradskii]

Don't tell Solomon -- he had a lot to sing about on the topic.

...probably something involving crust and crumbs.

You're bread in the eyes of the prostitute and definitely toast if your wife finds out.

 

[ISteveB]

We're heading off topic, but if the op doesn't mind...

You ARE the OP.
I.e, you started this thread.

I say 'reported to have said' just for accuracy. I might say 'As Plato once said' but what I actually mean is 'As Plato is reported to have once said'. We don't know for sure if he actually existed. But some of what he is reported to have said makes sense, so whether he did or didn't exist doesn't really matter. We can still take it on board just as we would if a fictional character in a book says something we think is profound.

Ah.
Ok.
So this isn't actually based on something specific.

The problem with this is that you open the door to all kinds of unsupported speculation. It has a tendency to make the conversations go in directions which weren't the original goal

I'd encourage you to consider not making it a practice to throw such statements into the mix. It acts like a bomb. The results become unpredictable and ugly.

As an atheist, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.

Ok.
The question here becomes-- do you actually want to know?
Not something that is merely an historical character, but someone who is knowable today?
Jesus said it is possible.

But what he is reported to have said (assuming he existed) is still worth listening to.

I'd agree.
In biblical christianity, the point is pretty clear.
If Jesus did rise from the dead, as is claimed, then what he said and promises to us is of infinite importance, and should be taken very seriously.

If he did not rise from the dead then nothing he said matters, because he's still dead, and that his teachings are based entirely on his resurrection, he'd be just another wannabe.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 makes the bodily resurrection of Jesus the key lynchpin of christianity.

So, yeah.... it's important to deal with the resurrection of Jesus.

I believe in Jesus because I have taken the time to learn to engage him on his terms. I have not been disappointed with him.

And I use 'reported to have said' in the same way I would with Plato.

Got it.

Note that the chunk of text above you quoted Jesus as saying was written decades after He died.

Yep. 90-95 CE.
So some 60 years later.

But some people take everything he said as verbatim.

yes we do.
The question that this should raise is:

Why do we do this?

It's not typically a question that's even thought of.

It's actually contained within the text. A promise given by Jesus, to his followers.

Whereas I take it as the gist of what someone thought he might have said.

And had it not been for who Jesus is, and what he promises to his followers, we could agree with you on this.

The resurrection of Jesus is the lynchpin of the whole thing.

Dead messiahs, and dead christs are a penny a million (as opposed to a dime a dozen). But a physically risen Messiah/Christ....
This is something/someone that/who cannot be ignored.

 

[Bradskii]

You ARE the OP.
I.e, you started this thread.

Ah. So I did...

And the op thinks the direction of the conversation is drifting too far away from the original intent. Maybe we should head back to discussing morality.

 

[ISteveB]

And your comment reminded me of a great scene from the West Wing about reading the bible. About 1:35 if you want to skip to it. Very well written and acted.

I find it curious that people think reading the bible one time through makes them enough of an expert to discuss their opinions on it, as though they actually get it.

Reading the bible through multiple times makes me aware of these things.

For example, the sabbath day was a day of rest and recuperation from a 6 day work week.
The culture of the day was not a culture of sitting in air-conditioned offices.
It was a culture of working in the vineyards, orchards, cattle ranching, digging, hard physical labor. And doing it outside in the sun.

God created the entire cosmos in 6 days. He rested on the 7th.
Not because he needed it. But as an example for us.... anyone who can think about the magnitude of the scale of the cosmos, and the effort required to develop the entire thing might have a scance of an idea of what is involved.

He gave us a gift. It's an insult, indeed a slap in the face to dismiss it.

Adultery.... we're talking about the family relationship. Marriage is a relationship between a man and woman, which is based on trust, respect and love.
Adultery is a problem because of the impact it has on the human heart. Trust takes time to develop and earn. It's broken in an instant when it's learned about it taking place.
God created the man and woman to be joined by love at the deepest levels of the human being and psyche. It's a bond not easily broken. It's been described in the past as a tearing, a ripping of the heart, at the very core of the human being.

So, as God created the man in his own image and likeness, and the woman to be man's equal, just how do you think he feels when either person commits adultery?

The trust is broken. The children suffer, family members and friends also suffer.

The divorce breaks more than just the husband and wife. Everyone in the family circle is impacted.

It's a violation at the deepest level of the human heart.

Slavery is a rather curious issue.

There is in fact serious consequences for violating the rights of people in God's Law.

Kidnapping, death.
In Israel, people who were in debt due to bad financial practices could essentially sell themselves to their debtors so they could pay their debts. There was no bankruptcy law. You paid your bills.
Every 50 years, people were have their debts wiped out, and family property was returned to the original family to whom it was owned, their descendants.
So, this included people who had sold themselves into slavery.

So, while the acting by Allen Alda was good, the content of his lines were based on lies.

It's important to know the truth regarding the bible.

These are just the 3 he mentioned.

I can go through the rest of the law too.

Something else that is critical that most people have no idea about...

The Law was written to create a just and righteous society.

Anyone who wanted to be a member of that society would have to agree with keeping the law written.

It was a matter of voluntary action.

If you don't want to be a member of their society, you leave their territory.

So.... again... if you're going to use Hollywood to justify your unbelief, you're going to find that I've been at this for a very long time now. A lot longer than Hollywood script writers.

 

[ISteveB]

Ah. So I did...

And the op thinks the direction of the conversation is drifting too far away from the original intent. Maybe we should head back to discussing morality.

Very well then.

Yes, the Law of YHVH (God's name) is objective.

It's objective because he is outside our time and space. According to Isaiah 40:12, he holds the entirety of the cosmos in the span of his hand.
So, how large is your span? It's the distance between the pinky finger tip and the thumb tip.
Mine is just under 9 inches. That means that my height is over 7 spans of my hand.
How about you?

YHVH holds the cosmos in the span of his hand.... the claim by Wikipedia is that the entire universe is some 91 billion light years across.

Just how large do you think that would make God?

In Isaiah 57:15, we read that he inhabits eternity yet dwells with the humble and contrite people.

So, this makes it quite clear that he does not dwell in our time and space.

So, as such, he's objective. His law is objective.

Then.... can there be some parts of the law which are violable.....

Thus, going back to my original questions...

What is your source for law/morality?

His Law is always only right, true, just.... as David told us from psalm 19.

Psa 19:7-11 WEB 7 Yahweh’s law is perfect, restoring the soul. Yahweh’s covenant is sure, making wise the simple. 8 Yahweh’s precepts are right, rejoicing the heart. Yahweh’s commandment is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring forever. Yahweh’s ordinances are true, and righteous altogether. 10 They are more to be desired than gold, yes, than much fine gold, sweeter also than honey and the extract of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover your servant is warned by them. In keeping them there is great reward.

There's a lot more about it than just this.

Only one person in the entirety of human history who has perfectly kept YHVH's Law. His name is Jesus.

In keeping it perfectly, he has been given the right to take our place in judgment.

He died in our place, so that everyone who comes to Jesus and places their trust in Jesus will receive the right to become children of God.

 

[ISteveB]

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken, as you did indeed ask the questions in post 1860. Would you like them answered, or do you choose to withdraw them?




And yet in post 1890 you assumed I knew nothing about why YHVH's opinions were so weighty.

There's no way you could have known... unless you asked. Which you chose not to.
Who's responsible for that decision?



You've been asking a lot of questions -- and getting quite testy when people answer them... seemingly because "you weren't talking to them" -- and now you complain about others allegedly seeking to control the discussion.

I admire your efforts to re-read the Bible; it's a noble and fulfilling pastime. Perhaps we can resume this discussion after you get to Matthew 7:5? You might find it enlightening.

Indeed, the problem here is that you have apparently ignored the statement Jesus made regarding judging righteous judgment.

Apparently it's a little more obscure than most people think.

Joh 7:24 WEB Don’t judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

 

[Bradskii]

What is your source for law/morality?

Basically that which causes harm is generally immoral. Unless there is a greater good.

And the death penalty for adultry? Yikes! How about working on the Sabbath?

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not possible. Because it comes down to a personal decision.

Personal decisions are based on personal preferences.

Which does not mean that we should treat someone else's decision as being valid and 'correct for them' so we must therefore allow it

Of course not. When folk try to level that accusation at Moral Subjectivity, it is a self contradicting argument. I've been through it with Steve on more than one occasion. Basically they are stating this:

If there is no wrong way to act in any manner, then it is wrong to act in this manner.

If it is impossible, in any way, under any hypothetical circumstances to determine a correct answer, this is what we're left with. No correct answer can be determined, because no correct answer exists.

So sure, it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth to acknowledge that no one can say truthfully, accurately, in a description of reality that "Beating one's wife is wrong". But that's okay, because no one can say truthfully, accurately, in a description of reality that "Going over there with a baseball bat is wrong" either.

 

[Bradskii]

Personal decisions are based on personal preferences.

I actually wrote 'based on personal preferences' and then changed it to 'personal decisions'. It sounded a bit more thoughtful than what could be claimed is a mere preference. But truth be told, they are mostly interchangeable.