what morality means
I believe right and wrong are objective. Even if EVERYONE was a sociopathic killer…even if we evolve AWAY from kindness (and into selfishness), we will all be wrong.
Morality is objectively correct.
mrsmcmommy
I’m fascinated by the fact that philosophical discussions in 2017 can still be so confused. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the thinkers of the past who formalised the rambling thoughts most humans have had in their private minds at some point in their life. It’s useful that the typical questions about existence and meaning that lead down obvious channels, are presented more carefully thought-out and sometimes exquisitely expressed, that they have been treasured for millennia, and that they can still provide inspiration for young minds so many generations later.
But let’s be clear, these concepts aren’t the foundation of human thinking. They are the earliest written expressions of countless similar thoughts, which, crucially, were conceived in times of relative ignorance. The assumptions in terms of superstitious underpinning cannot be ignored, nor can the context of the information void.
So, when attempting to discuss this notion of ‘morality’ with some people of a religious persuasion, I’m baffled by their continued acceptance of ‘objective morality’ as a given starting point. Because, they argue, if objective morality doesn’t exist, we’re totally doomed!
Not quite.
‘Morality’ is a label given to really quite basic human thought processes – I simply don’t accept the clouding of superstitious presumption that comes loaded with the label we have attached to it.
Our sense of morality is primarily (certainly in our early years) influenced by our environment: what our culture, society or parents have presented as ‘normal’ and ‘good’. Obvious examples are some Muslims feeling it’s immoral for a woman to show her face in public; some Christians feeling it’s immoral to have sex outside of marriage; some Jews feeling it’s immoral to eat pigs. There can be an overwhelming sense that something is wrong, for no other reason than it is not what we are used to as part of our underpinning tradition, and to do otherwise would feel bad.
But the mechanics of morality are simply actions. When children and adults start to critically evaluate these actions, and question why something ‘instinctively’ feels ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to them, they are stepping into the next stage of our sense of ‘morality’. Because the basic categorisation of actions as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ can be more helpfully evaluated by considering the positive and/or harmful outcomes of actions.
And this is where our moral judgements suddenly become terribly complex. Should we switch off life-saving machines keeping people in pain alive? Would that be killing or showing kindess? Should we bomb people we consider enemies in the pursuit of peace? Would short-term murder save more lives in the long-term? ‘Morality’ can almost never be the simple ‘yes’-‘no’/’right’-‘wrong’ choice that some Christians would like it to be, and this is one of the reasons that encouraging them to challenge their thinking is so important.
Some Christians agree up to this point, but then guided by their archaic understand of ‘morality’, get super excited about their delusion that humans could never agree on a ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ course of action without the presence of an invisible god beaming out ‘good’. This notion is as ridiculous as it seems. Our shared sense of morality as human beings is guided by our understanding of the impact of our actions, which is influenced by our naturally evolved empathy (understanding and caring about other people’s suffering) mixed with, among other things, the logic of the Golden Rule, the observation of which ensures a more pleasant society for everyone. It’s not magic – it’s simply putting ourselves in others’ shoes, caring about how they feel and wanting better living conditions for those we love.
So, for anyone else who holds the idea of an absence of objective morality with utter horror, please don’t be scared. Be scared for the people who can’t see complex decisions in a rational light, be scared for people who don’t understand their basic empathy, and who can’t see the logic in working together to create societies with less suffering, societies where we all look out for each other. Because all too often these are the shallow, instinctive moral judgements that can lead people to burn heretics, to hang homosexuals or to deny women bodily autonomy. These moral judgements made on a baseless, invisible ‘sense’ of perceived good and bad, are the most senseless of all.
It really surprised me when I discovered that Christianity’s golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Exists in pretty much every single world religion, in either a positive or negative statement. It’s one of a few nearly universal moral ideas. That isn’t an objective statement at all – it’s subjective in every which way.
LikeLike
It’s not that surprising, is it? It’s kind of obvious and logical.
LikeLike
When I was more Christian, I’d been taught to think that outsiders were utterly depraved – every cell was fallen and prone to sin, but also that we were all bad apples – rotten to the core. But back then I was pretty isolated and only around others like me who thought as I did. What’s obvious and logical when you’re trained to think that way – and only that way – is that you can’t trust your own fallen moral senses to be right even when you’ve been saved. It was when I realized that even non-Christians believed in some version of the Golden Rule that I began to see that we hadn’t cornered the market on morality and even if they can be right about some things it means they can be right about others – then we have to learn to appreciate that truth isn’t just from the one objective source, but subjectively we can all arrive at the same conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That the Golden Rule is found in many cultures and religions makes it an example of morality that is objective in nature.
The nature of objectivity is that it applies to everyone, universally.
Because the Golden Rule is a product of human reason, it is an excellent example of a natural law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One would think that if were an objective source, then they would all be exactly the same:
that which you hate to be done unto you, don’t do unto another
never impose on another what you would not choose for yourself
regard your neighbors gain as your own gain, your neighbors loss as your own loss
avoid doing what you would blame others for doing
treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you
that what you want for yourself, seek for mankind
hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful
There is an element in subjectivity in it as well, someone who wouldn’t want to be lied to might not lie, but someone who might not being lied to might lie when the situation permits it.
LikeLike
Jamie,
The idea of the Golden Rule is indeed exactly the same no matter the time, place or culture from which it appeared.
LikeLike
The simpler term for it is: reciprocity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The real problem from my perspective is their inability to actually specify what are the morals their god laid out and where do we find such a watertight list to follow?
Though shall not ….. what exactly?
LikeLiked by 2 people
They just want to play a game of back or forth done a million times before, with the ‘winning strike’ as laid out in their textbooks. They don’t appear able to think for themselves. And the fact that they won’t go through a simple exercise like the one you suggest proves they don’t even know what they’re defending.
LikeLike
This is what is the most frustrating.
We know the Tn Commandments don’t cut it, so what actually is the guideline for the average Christian?
I was never a real christian, so maybe we need someone who was once up to their neck in it to spell it out?
LikeLike
I wonder if anyone truly contemplates it to its conclusion, it all comes down to putting their faith in the invisible.
LikeLike
Ark,
Please tell us why the biblical teachings against murder, stealing and greed don’t cut it anymore.
LikeLike
They never did back then and the Code of Hammurabi predates anything biblical …
Next …
LikeLike
Ark,
That everyone was going hog wild, so to speak, is exactly why God put his moral rules down in writing.
Writing is a most effective method by which we can share our heart and mind with multitudes of people for eternity (if the writing is preserved for eternity, that is.)
The Bible is God sharing his heart and mind with humanity, forever.
LikeLike
So why did he wait until the Mosaic era?
Was Yahweh on the toilet or something?
As I already noted, The Code of Hammurabi is the oldest know law code and predates the bible. And once again, you already know this, don’t you?
So, stop mucking about and tell us all where we can find Yahweh’s ultimate list of Morals.
LikeLike
Ark,
Who cares about the Code of Hammurabi?
Only students of ancient history.
Conversely, everyone cares about the Bible.
The Bible is the foundation of Western Civilization, the greatest, most prosperous, most technically advanced, most just civilization in all of human history.
LikeLike
Japan’s done quite well without it. Longer life spans and even greater implementation of technology.
LikeLike
Jason,
Japan was completely destroyed during World War II and reconstructed to be totally Western by General McArthur.
Sorry to disappoint you but it precisely because Japan was Westernized that it is so successful.
LikeLike
As I understood it, the Old Covenant’s terms had been fulfilled by Jesus; but the Sermon on the Mount showed how he upped the bar on most of the commandments: “You shall not murder” became “anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be answerable for it.”
“You shall not commit adultery” became “anyone who looks at a woman in lust is guilty in his heart.”
Jesus didn’t exactly do away with the 10 commandments, he just made them harder – less about the letter of the law and more about the spirit of the law. So for the most part, Christians strive follow Christ’s example as he is viewed as our moral teacher. He told people to live quiet, humble lives. Helping others. Caring for the poor. Speaking up for the oppressed.
But sometimes that message gets off track when people view the New Testament as the New Covenant and are all about obeying it to the letter – they turn their back on what Jesus represented.
In recent years, Christianity’s morality matched a typical 1950s family sit-com as the ideal – a Leave it Beaver sort of existence is viewed as a golden-age representation of morality and family life – so you’ll see elements of that being pushed as the goal to which we should strive to match: an era when everybody went to church, when fathers were the heads of their family, churches, and communities, where Christianity was still respected in the schools, etc. But those t.v. shows never did show a true-to-life picture of what life of like for people of color and other marginalized populations in that day and age. There was a lot of shame in not living up to that standard for those who were from privileged families.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, that point about harking back to a time that never actually existed is so weird. It’s common theme though, we overlook the advancements we’ve made and talk about ‘the good old days’. It’s a security blanket, like the invisible parent of true justice in the sky.
LikeLike
It happens at the individual level a lot. I was once visiting this church where this elderly woman sighed sadly as she overlooked a room of empty pews: “It wasn’t that long ago when all these pews were full of families and noisy kids were running up and down the hallways. I wonder where everyone has gone?” I didn’t have the heart to tell her that she wanted things the way they were back before my time – as if she could hit pause when that church was at it’s zenith and have it that way forever – she’d have to freeze the church in a time before I was even born. I didn’t feel so bad about not going back because she was living in a past in which I didn’t exist.
LikeLike
Jamie,
You are blaming God for the evil that men do.
Our “Leave it to Beaver,” attitude is our own fault, not God’s.
LikeLike
Odd. I always thought it was the logical conclusion when Christian precepts were carried out to it’s fullest conclusion and set in a place of power. The Christianity of the Bible was little more than a backwards cult from the fringes of the Roman Empire – not the sort of religion that had unchecked power and influence as Christianity has had in it’s heyday.
LikeLike
Jamie,
Wisdom is something that comes about through great effort and contemplation.
My first comment hearkens back to ancient works of literature whose wisdom forms the foundation of Western Civilization.
It took thousands of years for our modern world of today to come about.
And people like you and Violet are throwing it all out the window because you think it all happened all by itself.
Our Western Civilization can only continue if its people spend a great deal of their leisure time learning and contemplating the wisdom that brought it about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what of the wisdom of the rest of civilization? Are they without any merit at all? Or only where it coincides with our own?
The ancient Romans and Greeks once thought themselves to be the peak of civilization; but they had bloody gladiatorial events, slavery, and were a society that didn’t have freedoms and equality as we know them today. Sometimes really old ideas about right and wrong just don’t fly.
LikeLike
Jamie,
Western Civilization is the only civilization in human history that progressed past the slave and the beast of burden as engines of the economy.
Western Civilization is the only civilization to develop modern science, modern medicine, nearly universal human rights and endless wealth that allows the common man to live far better than the royalty of yore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I’m not mistaken, a number of innovations in western civilization are concepts borrowed from eastern civilation – plumbing is first seen in the Indus region; the concept of zero – also eastern in origin. The golden rule – isn’t exclusively western either. I’ve come to see that all humanity is from the same family, we are all one civilization; so no more us vs. them – we’re only hurting ourselves.
LikeLike
Jamie,
Western Civilization is the best of mankind all happening at the same time in the same place.
LikeLike
No, no, no. Silenceofmind, you have mistaken. Let me elaborate. Western Civilization is not the only one, but merely the first one to develope modern science, and nearly universal human rights. These issues may correlate with Christianity being the predominant religion in the western culture, but there is no direct causation between the the two any more than there is a causation between the ancient Sumerian gods and the invention of the wheel, nor Democracy and the ancient Greek gods.
Infact, we have ample evidence, that such things as modern science and nearly universal human rights are the result of secularization process in the western society, rather than Christianity. Add to injury, we do know, that the Christian church has been and is even today an obvious hindrance to both modern science and more universal human rights today. Look at how creationism is an attempt to undermine modern science and how the rights of sexual minorities are still under attack from the Christian churches. Look even at how one particular Christian church is causing terrible suffering and preventing lethal disease to be fought by ridiculous and immoral edicts about condom use in Africa.
I may agree with you though about a somewhat objective morals to be found in nature. I do not see how that observation would support this or that otherwise unverified god claims, though. It is a natural thing, that some things and actions are beneficial, and some are harmfull to the human being. There, however, also is the issue of situational ethics. Killing may be wrong, but not many Christians who otherwise agree with the ten commandments would go as far as Jesus in his demand to turn the other cheek, or even consider it a good and moral act, when they are called to serve their countries in war, at least when the war is to protect their nation, and not about controlling the natural resources of a nother country. Right? So, there are situations in wich killing is not as immoral as in some other situations. Right?
I know that a lot of Christians try to go around this by saying that the ten commandments refer only to murder, but then we arrive to the question of situation defining that this killing of a nother human being is murder and that killing of a nother human being is not. Hence, the situation defines whether otherwise exactly the same action is murder or not.
The objectivity of any individual action, issue or morals is thus sometimes very complex. We have no access to absolute information about anything. Even a creator god of the entire universe could not possibly know wether or not it possessed absolute information about anything, because that is the nature of information. There may always be something we, or the gods (if any of them existed), did not know, we, or they, did not know, that could radically change their perspective on the issue at hand. Therefore we humans and any gods can only operate on the best possible and most objective information at hand. To get as objective as possible view on any issue we humans may access, we have ample reasons to rely on the scientific methodology. Not to rely on ancient scribbles of ignorant and superstitious people, wether if their religion is from this or that cultural sphere nor wether that culture is relatively well of at the moment in our own view in comparrison to it’s contemporaries. Yes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No.
LikeLike
No, what?
LikeLike
“Our Western Civilization can only continue if its people spend a great deal of their leisure time learning and contemplating the wisdom that brought it about.”
I think this is a great sentiment SOM. I don’t necessary think our Western Civilisation is key – but I agree that we need to spend more time learning and thinking in order to take human society in a more useful direction.
LikeLike
Violet,
Where else and when else has there ever been a civilization has great and modern as Christian Western Civilization?
LikeLike
By whose standards?
LikeLike
Violet,
You may answer the question using any standard you wish.
LikeLike
I’m a feminist animal lover, I find our society woefully lacking. Men in all the positions of power and animals mercilessly farmed and slaughtered in their billions. Certainly there are lots of modern buildings, if you like that kind of thing.
LikeLike
Violet,
That mankind is woefully lacking is not the fault of Western Civilization; and is a great argument that morality must be objective or else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
I recommend, “Leisure, the Basis of Culture,” by Josef Pieper.
It is available on Amazon Kindle for $9.99.
It was the textbook for one of my graduate school classes.
“Leisure is an attitude of the mind and a condition of the soul that fosters a capacity to perceive the reality of the world.”
“Pieper shows that the Greeks and medieval Europeans, understood the great value and importance of leisure.”
“He also points out that religion can be born only in leisure — a leisure that allows time for the contemplation of the nature of God.”
LikeLike
Thanks SOM, sounds fascinating. 🙂
LikeLike
‘Some people of a religious persuasion……’
Wonderful violet. You have inadvertantly proved entirely the premise of my latest post. And guess what? It took no effort and caused no sweat on your part to reveal the brutally honest assessment of my observation regarding the ‘non-content’ doctrines of godlessness aimed generally at religions, and specifically Christianity.. 😉
And btw, without God in the mix, there is zero basis for morality, as the level to gauge is broken and useless. And please do not preach a broken law in a world where grace was introduced.
https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/hold-it-right-there-buster/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks ColorStorm, I’m looking forward to reading your post. Can I ask if you actually read mine? If you could point to any particular sentences or sections you feel are untrue, it would help me understand your objection.
LikeLike
Hello? I quoted you at the outset. Of course I read it. And my reply was similar to SoM I just noticed, whereby he develops the idea further that the song you are playing has a broken needle…………….
LikeLike
Ark,
The Bible specifically states the morals that God laid out.
LikeLike
Really? I have read the bible more than is probably good for me, so please, tell me where… Chapter and verse.
LikeLike
Yes, Ark, really.
All you need to do is actually read the Bible.
It’s all there awaiting your own personal discovery.
LikeLike
Sorry… did you miss that I wrote I have read more than is probably good for me?
Chapter and Verse , please SOM.
How difficult is that for one so well-versed in the Old Testament as you are?
LikeLike
Pingback: Woes From A Deconvert – The Comedy Sojourn
I go to sleep nearly every night listening to Plato’s Republic, or lessons on the Bible.
Plato, student of the great Socrates, wrote his examination of the soul over 2500 years ago.
And nearly 1000 years before that, Moses, the leader of a nomadic tribe called the Hebrews, began writing the blockbuster now widely known as the Old Testament.
One fundamental topic examined by the ancient Greeks and Hebrews is justice.
The power behind these great works of literature is that in a very deep, satisfying way, they examine the nature of God, man and universe.
And since the nature of God, man and universe does not change over time neither does the ancient wisdom taught by these great books.
This post is an example of a postmodern person’s rejection of very critical lessons learned by mankind over the last few thousand years.
Hopelessly marooned in time, the postmodern person is left entertaining herself with fairy tales and urban myths as she prides herself in her reinvention the wheel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great comment SOM, honestly, I’m impressed. I don’t agree though, so if you point to any particular sentence or section that is untrue, I’d be delighted to learn what things are fairy tales and what things are urban myths.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Violet,
The fairy tale is that morality can be subjective.
If we all have the same human nature, good and evil must be universally the same for all of us.
That means that morality is necessarily objective.
LikeLike
There is no such thing as A human nature; this is simply ‘human nature’… a turn of phrase to indicate a commonality… whatever that commonality – be it a trait or behaviour or tendency or concern or care – might be. That’s it. That’s all. That’s all she wrote. It is a general turn of phrase and not ‘evidence’ for some Divine Poof!-inator.
Whatever specific identifier is being referred to is not evidence for you god. It’s evidence for a commonality. You keep jumping from this commonality to your god and claiming ownership for it. That is unreasonable.
There are other explanations that are actually based on compelling causal evidence that posses testable links between a biological cause and the ‘human nature’ effects selected. You are trying to wedge your god into this causal chain and then insisting the link MUST BE broken if god is removed from the explanation. Says who? Well, says those who can’t think very clearly.
The causal explanations for biological commonality stands on biological merit and not on a weird and unworldly superstitious belief in nebulous agencies of Oogity Boogity like you keep insisting.
Objective morality is a case in point. Show me this thing you call ‘objective morality.’ You can’t. Even your vaunted ten commandments don;t do this. Claims about objective morality always boil down to being nothing more than another expression about this idea of commonality. And round the mulberry bush we go again. Inserting some god answers nothing but muddies the water of actually defining what is meant by morality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb,
You are denying the obvious, as usual.
And as usual that leaves you arguing with yourself and losing.
Our human nature is a priceless possession that you relegate to insignificance.
No wonder then that the greatest genocides in human history atheism’s greatest gift to mankind.
If you don’t value your own humanity it is no wonder that you reject it as the gold standard for moral/ethical judgements.
LikeLike
Violet,
In the end, the difference between the thoughtful commentary presented by 22bytes, Storm, JBranyan, Jim and Yours truly couldn’t be more different then the rabid, hateful trolling presented by your atheist brethren Ark, JZ, & Tildeb,
And Rautakyy’s loquacious ramblings are simply spots on the wall thrown from a bucket of fetid warn out leftist propaganda.
You people deny the factually undeniable: that Christian love is at the foundation all your values which are the product of Christian Western Civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh SOM, I hope John Branyan is reading you. He claims to be a professional stand up comedian – but you and ColorStorm will always hold the trophy in my eyes. Perhaps with that comment about Raut you sneaked to the winning line! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
And nearly 1000 years before that, Moses, the leader of a nomadic tribe called the Hebrews, began writing the blockbuster now widely known as the Old Testament.
And with that sentence any vestige of credibility you may have believed you had just went out the window,
I guess we will have to wait for a real Christian to turn up.
But thanks for playing.
LikeLike
Ark,
You are the one who lacks credibility.
Whether you believe in Moses or not, the Bible got written and Israel came to be.
That’s all the common ground we need to continue with this discussion.
Whether Moses existed or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
Bible literature exists. It has for millennia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I f it is irrelevant the why bring it up?
So you agree that Moses was a narrative construct. Fine.
Now explain what are your god’s morals.
Where will find this list?
LikeLike
Ark,
Was Homer, the author of the Iliad, a real person?
We don’t know.
Nevertheless, the wisdom of literature attributed to Homer is undeniable.
It’s the same with Moses.
The wisdom of the literature attributed to Moses is one of mankind’s treasure troves.
LikeLike
Yes… but we DO know that there was no one called Moses, so therefore he could not possibly have been the author. And even if he had existed, it doesn’t take a scholarly genius to figure out he could not possibly have written the bible and you already know this so why are you arguing the point?
FWIW: Moses was a genocidal maniac.
LikeLike
Ark,
No, we don’t know that there is no one called Moses.
We don’t know one way or the other.
Your conclusion that positively Moses didn’t exist is more erroneous, however.
The Bible itself, the Hebrew-Jewish culture and the state of Israel are all evidence, though not proof, that Moses existed.
LikeLike
You don’t maybe but every serious scholar does.
This is like stating England, its ancient castles, chain mail, and suits of armour are evidence but not proof that Merlin existed.
One can never have a ordinary, common-sense conversation with a Biblical literalist /Creationist.
Truly, it’s easier discussing algebra with a dog.
LikeLike
Ark,
Comparing the Bible, Moses and Israel to Merlin demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part.
It’s almost as bad as you asking where in the Bible is God’s moral code.
You really don’t know what you are talking about.
And that makes a conversation impossible.
LikeLike
So .. where in the bible IS Yahweh’s moral code?
Still waiting for you to outline it please.
LikeLike
Ark,
Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?
LikeLike
So … where in the bible is Yahweh’s moral code, please?
LikeLike
Eddy?
LikeLike
EXACTLY!
LikeLike
I love the way you Silence all stone gods, especially the ones who wear strange hats. It is also almost embarrassing how you bring daylight, reason, and unflappable demolition of the vapid arguments of godlessness, on a regular basis, and in the home of other peoples blogs.
Fight the good fight SoM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Storm,
Thank you so much for the kind encouragement!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a lovely statement ColorStorm, I expect SOM really appreciates the support.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well V, what are you waiting for? Get on board with reason and spiritual delight. 😉
LikeLike
Storm,
It really is delightful contemplating the truth.
Such contemplation sooths the soul of the wild beast.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am always interested to hear just what the moral objectivist thinks about what makes something objective, and what the moral realist thinks about what makes something real.
We are quite happy deferring to consensus as part of our judgment regarding the objectivity or reality of other things. Yet that seems to be the very maneuver that the moral objectivists and the moral realists, to a lesser extent, seem determined to argue against regarding morality.
It is a very interesting wiggle they do.
LikeLike
Wait, do I come across as a moral realist? All these labels are so loaded, and I guess every conversation about it is stale.
LikeLike
I am not accusing you of such a thing. Then again, I am not really accusing anyone of such a thing.
Quite the opposite.
Some of the commenters claim those labels however, and I suspect that they can’t really explain what they mean by it.
Without begging the question that is – see below.
LikeLike
Good to know. I never know how the words I type come across. And when I discuss them with some Christians, I can’t be sure if they are being deliberately obtuse or if they actually don’t have the framework to understand things from another point of view (or if I’m explaining things atrociously!)
LikeLike
You express yourself clearly.
I think the framework is the problem, but I think that it is part of a global pathology regarding truth.
Most people adhere to a correspondence theory of truth. To oversimplify, what’s true is what works. Correspondence contains a reference to consensus, regarding what works.
Correspondence is fine, but it lacks the necessity that we want for truth. It misses, widely.
We recognize that there are ‘plain facts’ and the plain facts needn’t work.
But that makes the truth a very small and limited thing, a thing too small, in fact, to box up in a theory.
Minimalist or deflationary notions of truth come closest.
Most people find minimalism very unsatisfying, however, and prefer correspondence, whether or not it works 🙂
LikeLike
Keith,
Objectivity comes about by the use of a common, truthful (real) standard.
The objective standard for morality is human nature.
Consequently, the journey toward understanding morality begins with understanding human nature.
LikeLike
I do understand the argument that you can’t have an objective morality (something that is ALWAYS wrong or right) without someone other than humans deciding what that is. But you can get functionally close and that is what matters.
I think that 99.99 percent of the world’s population would agree that torturing children for fun is immoral, and you don’t need a belief in a god / God or the Ten Commandments to arrive at that conclusion.
LikeLike
“I do understand the argument that you can’t have an objective morality (something that is ALWAYS wrong or right) without someone other than humans deciding what that is. But you can get functionally close and that is what matters.”
I’m not sure I agree we can even get functionally close – and I don’t think even an eternal superbeing could. It’s utterly impossible to weight up the ramifications of every action and apply a reliable measurement to those infinite consequences. Someone or something always suffers – there is no 100% good or bad action. I think most of us do our best with best intentions, and that’s all we can hope for at any given time. We learn more, we modify our behaviour (hopefully for the better) and life should improve.
LikeLike
Well, I have never met a person who thought torturing infants for fun was morally acceptable. But then there are probably people who do think it is find in some twisted way.
But, I think societies can get close enough to function albeit not perfectly.
LikeLike
Certainly your example would be a difficult one to find disagreement, but that’s not typical of the moral dilemmas we face in our lives. Most the decisions we make are much more complex with far reaching and diverse consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, I agree with you. I am just pointing out that the vast majority of religious and non-religious people can come super close to 100% agreement on at least one moral issue.
LikeLike
Jim,
What about the Great Genocide of the Unborn?
The reason it is such an intractable issue is precisely because supporters of the genocide do not share the same moral standard enjoyed by the supporters of life.
My intention here is not to argue the abortion issue but to illustrate in spades the critical importance of mankind sharing an objective standard of morals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SOM, I agree. IF there was a moral standard about abortion that ALL humanity accepted, then we would not have an abortion problem. Obviously, that 100% acceptance is the key missing component to the equation.
LikeLike
Jim,
Our Western Civilization is a Christian culture.
And our American Republic was founded on “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
Therefore the rejection of Christian morality and a legal system based on natural law theory is a rejection of Western culture in general and American culture in particular.
Such rejection is hallmark intolerance.
Also, “the key missing component” isn’t necessary.
100% acceptance of anything is clearly impossible and therefore irrational.
LikeLike
What percentage of the population needs to agree to tip killing babies into the category of ‘morally correct’?
LikeLike
I don’t know, but clearly not enough people believe that at this point.
LikeLike
The point is, we don’t derive morality by consensus.
LikeLike
John, I do understand the point. Practically speaking, many morals are derived by consensus. Abortion is legal, and some would conclude that it is therefore moral, because a majority of the Supreme Court says it is.
As I said to our beloved host, Violet, I understand the argument that you can NOT have an absolute moral standard that is binding upon everyone without God / god. I agree with that point of view. But there are certain things that everyone instinctively knows is immoral. Torturing children for fun being one of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, indeedy!
That sense that we all kinda feel like maybe we shouldn’t kill children hints at moral objectivity. With so much evolved cultural diversity, you’d think there would be at least ONE culture where they award medals for butchering kids.
Our beloved host(ess) seems to like objective morality but doesn’t like that it requires God/god to exist.
LikeLike
Oops, there yopu go, contradicting yourself.
Remember, there is no obkective morality
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/GOD%20CHANGES_BRANYAN_1_zpsjjj7wvsx.jpg?t=1487841676
LikeLike
Right!
Evolution is all that exists.
Contradictions are part of evolution.
Stop trying to preach right and wrong!
LikeLike
LikeLike
“With so much evolved cultural diversity, you’d think there would be at least ONE culture where they award medals for butchering kids.”
Thankfully not at this point in our evolution, when we have evolved generally agreed principles of decent behaviour as a complete species (UDHR). I suspect it’s only the presence of dogma (religious or otherwise) that leads us to abandon basic empathy and logic to commit crimes against humanity on a larger scale. But obviously some cultures did use child sacrifice to appease angry gods, some subcultures currently use and abuse children for their own entertainment or profit. We don’t have an objective morality stick to tell us this is wrong – most of know through empathy, shared cultural morality and logic that this vile. Most humans naturally have a desire to protect and nurture children – if we didn’t have this a major instinct our offspring would never survive!
LikeLike
I deconverted.
No measuring stick.
No God.
No sin.
Only evolution.
Child sacrifice is not wrong.
Slavery is not wrong.
LikeLike
Except you didn’t really deconvert. And that’s why you’re projecting your Christian fantasy of life-without-invisible-gods on the rest of us.
I agree there is no invisible god in the sky telling me child sacrifice is wrong on an invisible right-wrong scale of ‘good’. But do you need that scale to modify your behaviour? Does anyone? No, it appears not. In the absence of some idiot telling us an invisible god wants us to sacrifice children, humans naturally feel it is ‘wrong’ (which is this case means unpleasant, harmful, unnatural, cruel etc, rather than ‘invisible god stick’)
LikeLike
There is no absolute right and wrong.
Child sacrifice is not wrong.
This is true.
LikeLike
If you want to continue to define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ according to this nebulous concept of BIG GOD DO RIGHT, that bears no further inspection and is based on pure imagination, then go ahead. I’ve stated quite clearly why most humans regard it as wrong.
LikeLike
I deconverted.
I have said nothing about BIG GOD DO RIGHT.
State quite clearly, is there a standard for right and wrong?
LikeLike
Branyan, you haven’t deconverted. That’s why you’re insisting on projecting a Christian-based delusion onto decision making guided by empathy, and asking about childish ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ categories, instead of evaluating situations individually.
Furthermore, in admission of the precariousness of your own situation, you cannot participate in a simple discussion about the implications of the BIG GOD DO RIGHT philosophy. What is morality? Is it a feeling/sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour? Or do we need a written text to guide us? I’d love to know what you think! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed.
And I would love to know what you think.
I’ve asked several times now. You have not ‘spoken clearly’.
Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?
LikeLike
“Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?”
What would that look like?
LikeLike
That is the question I’m asking you.
John Zande is reading.
Since he looks to you for answers, you better give one. This shouldn’t be too difficult, really. It’s a simple yes or no.
Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?
LikeLike
It’s not quite simple yes or no. I don’t know what you mean by it. In what context? What would it look like if it existed?
LikeLike
It is a simple yes or no. But it’s good to see you’re planning ahead! What it would look like is the next question. But there’s no to ask that question about something that doesn’t exist. So…
In all contexts, throughout history, across cultures, everywhere, is there an absolute standard of right and wrong?
LikeLike
I have no idea how you think that could work. In terms of broad agreement, most humans agree with the UN Charter of Human Rights. It’s a great measure of how we learn from our mistakes and adapt our understanding of how we should treat each other. In terms of specific actions such as stealing, most countries have laws to protect fellow humans. But I don’t see how you can draw all the threads of every possible action together (as well as evaluating all their outcomes) and claim an absolute standard. Can you explain it? Or is this game only about projecting your LIFE-WITHOUT-GODS delusion on the rest of us?
LikeLike
You still won’t answer the question.
Remember you ‘speak clearly’ about your views? It really is a yes/no question. I can’t understand why you won’t just answer it.
John Zande said there is no absolute standard for right and wrong. Do you agree?
LikeLike
You still haven’t explained what that would mean. What on earth could that mean? I’ve explained to you the myriad contexts where we can evaluate rights and wrongs and how most humans can agree. What could an absolute standard mean? Please explain.
LikeLike
The meaning is self evident. Asking me to repeat the question will not make it go away. The question cannot be reduced to simpler terms.
“Is there a standard for right and wrong that always applies, everywhere in the universe, throughout time?”
Update: John Zande has now retracted his earlier answer. So it’s up to you, Violet.
LikeLike
What on earth would that look like? The meaning is not self-evident. It’s absolute nonsense. You would have to say in what context – there is not ONE situation in the whole of existence nor is there ONE of only TWO outcomes in the whole of existence. You’re asking your god to reduce life to two options – have you looked at ‘his creation’?
LikeLike
For the very last time.
I said NOTHING about any god.
For the very last time.
The question, “What on earth would that look like?” is the NEXT question.
I gave you the ‘context’.
Everywhere.
Every time.
Across cultures.
All circumstances.
ALL CONTEXTS.
Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?
LikeLike
Branyan, I’m sorry to break it to you, but such an utterly stupid question doesn’t exist outside the context of invisible gods. The fact that you can’t even attempt to pull some sense out of your faith to ask a question that relates to reality says it all.
If you want to ask it in a way that makes sense, try “For every potential action does my god have a preferred course he would recommend?” – that is the right and wrong you seek to create. We can’t translate that into an existence absent of gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So without God, you can’t even answer this question.
I understand.
LikeLike
Without gods, such a silly question doesn’t exist. With gods, you’ve been unable to put it in a context that makes sense. I tried for you – did you agree? “For every potential action does my god have a preferred course he would recommend?”
LikeLike
You’re very muddled, Violet.
Claiming that any question doesn’t exist without gods is ridiculous. Of course the question exists. It has been asked.
Either a standard for absolute right and wrong exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t exist, then we cannot talk to each other about ‘wrong’ behavior.
If it does exist, then we can talk to each other about what it ‘looks like’.
If you really don’t understand then take some time to ponder the question. I’m suspicious that you and JZ) do understand the question and you don’t like the answer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
LikeLike
Branyan, the starting point here is that you believe your god has a preferred choice for every potential action. You call this ‘absolute right and wrong’. Am I right? (try just to answer these instead of swinging off) I don’t believe your god exists, or any god exists, so I’m explaining to you where our sense of ‘morality’ comes from outside that framework.
Hope that helps.
LikeLike
“Branyan, the starting point here is that you believe your god has a preferred choice for every potential action.”
You cannot assign me a belief then criticize that assigned belief.
Hope that helps.
LikeLike
It’s difficult to have a conversation with someone about a concept that makes no sense when they’re too afraid to fully identify the starting point for their thoughts. Maybe you’re right, but I won’t know if you can’t articulate why you think there could possibly exist an absolute standard of right and wrong.
LikeLike
“…but I won’t know if you can’t articulate why you think there could possibly exist an absolute standard of right and wrong.”
…sigh…
The original question TO YOU was “Is there an absolute standard of right and wrong?” But, if you need me to go restate my ‘starting point’, I’m happy to do so.
As clearly as I know how to articulate it:
There is no god.
There is no standard for absolute right and wrong.
There is no standard for absolute right and wrong.
There is NO STANDARD for absolute right and wrong.
An absolute standard for right and wrong does not exist.
There is no standard for absolute right and wrong.
Do you agree?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The original question TO YOU was “Is there an absolute standard of right and wrong?” But, if you need me to go restate my ‘starting point’, I’m happy to do so.”
My dear friend, I think we know that you are lying or playing a game when you pretend you think there is no god. Because, as I explained to you, someone what doesn’t believe in gods doesn’t evaluate decision making in such a curious, simplistic, and erroneous manner.
LikeLike
Ah. Thank you for that.
There is no absolute standard for right and wrong.
Agree?
LikeLike
I agree there is no god simplistically evaluating every actions humans make as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Do you?
LikeLike
So there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.
See? That wasn’t so difficult, was it?
LikeLike
It is quite difficult because, as I’ve explained, it’s a question that makes no sense. If you ever get over your fear of expressing what you truly think please feel free to clarify how that could work.
LikeLike
It is a question that makes perfect sense.
We agree there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.
Now, be a good mentor and go explain to JZ that it’s not absolutely wrong to brainwash children.
LikeLike
Maybe what I’ve just explained to mrsmcmommy will make more sense to you: “when Branyan asksi f there is absolute right and wrong, I have to understand what he means by that first. Right and wrong can be a variety of things, including things like: selfish and selfless motivation; positive and negative outcomes in terms of suffering; long-term and short-term consequences. And everything we choose to do has a random mixture of all these and more – so what exactly could ‘absolute right and wrong’ be? Until that’s clarified, it’s difficult to answer.”
LikeLike
Do you remember that I put it in context?
Everywhere.
All the time.
Always.
Across culture.
All people.
Absolutely.
Absolute right and wrong.
Do you STILL not understand what I mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To have that understanding you must mean in the context of mysterious, invisible forces – is that correct? Add that to the list as a clarification in terms of sense and I’ll be more than happy to answer your question.
LikeLike
No.
Mysterious invisible forces do not exist.
Let me try it another way.
Is it ALWAYS right to feed starving children?
LikeLike
Not if they would suffer an even more excruciating death because of prolonging their life with food. But we’re not in a position to see the future so most humans with an animal sense of nurturing and a human sense of empathy, would feel it is RIGHT to feed a starving child.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So it isn’t ALWAYS right to feed starving children.
Sometimes it is actually WRONG to feed starving children.
It is up to each of us to do with starving children.
There is no absolute right answer.
I understand.
Sometimes it is right to brainwash children.
Sometimes it is right to rape women.
Sometimes it is right to keep slaves.
Individuals have to work out right and wrong on a case by case basis because it’s very complicated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it’s not that complicated. I’ll refer you back to the UN Charter for Human Rights and common laws around the world. None of which were magically beamed from invisible gods. 🙂 Don’t confuse common decency and stable societies with the myriad outcomes of our actions. I had a feeling this was all too complex for you …
LikeLike
So the UN Charter for Human Rights is absolutely right everywhere, all the time?
LikeLike
I don’t know, I haven’t gone through the infinite possibilities of actions with billions of people in billions of situations. It’s a great guide we should stick to. Does god suggest the absolute right everywhere, all the time? How would that work practically? You really are afraid of thinking about that, aren’t you?
LikeLike
So the UN Charter for Human Rights isn’t always right either.
Before I deconverted, I used to trust my conscience because I thought God had put that sense of right and wrong inside me.
After I deconverted, I realized that conscience doesn’t come from God. It’s just a chemical process in my brain. So right and wrong are relative to how I think about things.
It’s simple as that!
LikeLike
… in your projected religious-delusion of life without right and wrong from gods. Which you’re too afraid to analyse in any depth. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
You asked for an explanation then mocked my response.
Nothing wrong with that though.
You decide what’s right and wrong.😀
LikeLike
Your answer was a mockery of a ‘de-convert’. I apologise for mocking your erroneous projection of life without religion. 😀
LikeLike
Stick your faux apology up your ass. 😀
Relative morality is fun!
LikeLike
Do you retreat to ‘comedy’ when you have nothing more to offer? Please do come back when you can answer what your god’s perfect morality stick looks like and how it influences your own decision making. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nah.
I’m done here.
If you want to talk to me I’ll be on my blog space.
LikeLike
And still not answering any questions about your own beliefs. At least mrsmcmommy isn’t scared of discussing her beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it ALWAYS right to feed starving children?
No. If, for example, that child is being held captive in a pit of despair (like Harry Harlow’s Pits of Despair) and you have no other way of saving that child from their absolute and permanent misery then permitting (enabling) the child to die would be the morally-ethically correct thing to do.
There is a photo I saw once which was harrowing. It was a Sudanese man in a horrid drought standing on the head of his child, killing the child, so as to release that child from its misery.
LikeLike
Sometimes it’s right to kill children.
It’s up to each of us to decide.
Sometimes it is right to brainwash children.
It’s up to each of us to decide.
LikeLike
I’ll refer you back to the UN Charter for Human Rights and common laws around the world. None of which were magically beamed from invisible gods. 🙂 Don’t confuse common decency and stable societies with the myriad outcomes of our actions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, not if there are options for a better outcome.
The Sudanese man had no other option available to him and he wanted his child to stop suffering.
Would you, John, free a child from her misery if freeing that child meant letting her die?
LikeLike
Right.
And we each determine which options are ‘better’.
There is no absolute standard.
Kill a child.
Feel a child.
It depends on what I think is best.
LikeLike
Please just answer the question put to you without the typical Branyan ONE-HUNDRED-COMMENT-DIVERSION-SONG-AND-DANCE.
Can you do that?
Is it within your capabilities?
Please.
Would you, John, free a child from her misery if freeing that child meant letting her die?
LikeLike
Yep!
I’d pop popcorn and watch her shrivel into a ball of dust.
LikeLike
In the case of the Sudanese man, he was about to die, too.
If you think joking about such things is witty, then you are truly a sad, pathetic, and sick human being.
LikeLike
“If you think joking about such things is witty, then you are truly a sad, pathetic, and sick human being.”
But not absolutely. That is your subjective opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Banyan is an intellectual coward unable to hold or even contribute to a rational discussion when it comes to anything that challenges his religious indoctrination. It tries to disguise this inability by pretending to be funny. It’s not funny. It’s a waste of time. That’s why he states absurdities and, when responded to, offers idiotic non sequiturs and falsehoods to divert, divert, divert, and then continue to use infantile misrepresents of others… what they say, what they mean, what they think, and so on. He lies with abandon Because he is set in his pernicious religious beliefs, he assumes reality will comport to them. That’s why he tries to convince himself here just how right he is… by constantly playing silly word games and vilifying those who disagree with his beliefs for cause.
He is in sum a waste of my time and as this thread indicates a waste of every other reader’s. He doesn’t care about you. He doesn’t care about what’s true. He doesn’t care to engage. He doesn’t care to respect reality. He doesn’t care about your post, your comments, your efforts to engage him. He just wants your attention like the spoiled brat he is and demands your time and the time of your readers and that accumulated effort to amuse him. That’s why he’s here. He’s not here to learn, not here to discuss, not here to offer anything valuable. He’s here to derail this thread and think himself amusing (and amused) to do so. That’s it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve quite enjoyed chatting to him and mrsmcmommy. I think I understand why he avoids the questions, and he does occasionally get to the point. There’s no point in blaming them for their delusion, and at least they are willing to engage. There’s been a lot worse.
LikeLike
I’m curious, John. Do you actually think you’re being funny? That’s a serious question, as I’d like to just get a handle on where you think humour begins.
LikeLike
No.
Here’s another serious question as I’d like for you to get a handle on the consequences of indoctrinating children with atheism. This is the question before your protege, Violet.
Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obviously not
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/GOD%20CHANGES_zpsmmmoyd6x.jpg?t=1487842202
LikeLike
Thank you!
Then Christian indoctrination is not wrong. Tell Violet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You drunk?
How did you leap from you admitting there’s no such thing an objective “godly” truth to brainwashing children?
LikeLike
Wait…are you changing your mind?
Is there such a things as absolute right and wrong or not?
(Notice that the word ‘godly’ does NOT appear in that question.)
LikeLike
Answer the question
How did you leap from you admitting there’s no such thing an objective “godly” truth to brainwashing children?
LikeLike
You put the word ‘godly’ into the question. You didn’t think I’d notice but I’m pretty sharp. Relative morality sucks, doesn’t it? So…
Does an absolute standard for right and wrong exist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please just answer the question put to you without the typical Branyan ONE-HUNDRED-COMMENT-DIVERSION-SONG-AND-DANCE.
Can you do that?
Is it within your capabilities?
Please.
How did you leap from YOU admitting there’s no such thing an objective “godly” truth (you can remove the “godly” if you like as it’s hard to know if you’re a Christian or a deist on any given day) to brainwashing children?
LikeLike
It’s not a leap.
It’s a simple, logical step.
If there is no standard for right and wrong there is nothing wrong with Christian indoctrination.
This is elementary school stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
elementary school… I think that is where your mental and emotional development stopped.
LikeLike
Excellent reply.
My elementary school mentality has left you, once again, without a relevant response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On September 3, 2016 at 5:16 pm John Branyan said:
Evolved societal norms.
John, your dignity, it’s evaporating with every lie and contradiction you utter.
LikeLike
Evolved societal norms are not an absolute standard for right and wrong. These norms changes across culture and time.
Your move.
LikeLike
John Branyan’s own words:
Evolved societal norms, a “god” who changes its mind, who adapts, who learns, who grows.
Can you, John Branyan, see anywhere in your own words something pointing to a rigid objective base?
LikeLike
I deconverted.
There is no god.
There is no sin.
There is nothing wrong with indoctrinating children with religion.
What are you so upset about?
LikeLike
Please just answer the question put to you without the typical Branyan ONE-HUNDRED-COMMENT-DIVERSION-SONG-AND-DANCE.
Can you do that?
Is it within your capabilities?
Please.
Can you, John Branyan, see anywhere in your own words something pointing to a rigid objective base?
LikeLike
Hundred comment song and dance is ALWAYS because of you. Not me.
Okay let me say it EXACTLY the way you require me to say it in order to get whatever screenshot you think will help you make a point:
“I, John Branyan, see nothing in my own words that point to a rigid, objective base.”
And again, in case it helps:
There is no god.
There is no sin.
There is only evolution.
Evolved societal norms dictate our morality.
Evolved societal norms are not absolute.
Evolved societal norms change.
…now, is there anything else I can do for you?
LikeLike
Great, so you are openly conceding there is no such thing as some black and white objective truth.
What, then, are you hyping on about?
LikeLike
Yep.
No black and white objective truth.
So there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating children.
You are very, very slow on the uptake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are plenty of good reasons for why brainwashing children with factually-wrong fairytales stitched through with appalling threats is wrong.
LikeLike
And every reason is subjective.
LikeLike
It’s certainly a lot more complex than your simpleton mind can apparently grasp.
Good behaviour, for example, inspired by the threat of punishment doesn’t make someone a good person. It makes them a fearful person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Good behaviour, for example, inspired by the threat of punishment doesn’t make someone a good person. It makes them a fearful person.”
And we both agree there is nothing absolutely wrong about that.
LikeLike
Does being an asinine imbecile come naturally to you, John, or is it something you have to work at daily?
LikeLike
We both agree that I am not absolutely an asinine imbecile. That is your subjective opinion.
LikeLike
““Good behaviour, for example, inspired by the threat of punishment doesn’t make someone a good person. It makes them a fearful person.”
And we both agree there is nothing absolutely wrong about that.”
It has negative consequences for society as a whole when people are making decisions primarily out of fear. Fear clouds our logical decision-making abilities and can even over-ride our natural empathy. It’s a powerful and negative emotion that can prove useful in terms of survival in certain situations but in terms of bigger society (which humans have generally moved to) causes serious problems. So it’s ‘wrong’ in that sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes.
But it’s not absolutely wrong in every sense. That’s the point.
Sometimes it is right to threaten people and make them fearful.
Each of us needs to decide for ourselves. It’s complicated.
LikeLike
No, it’s not that complicated. I’ll refer you back to the UN Charter for Human Rights and common laws around the world. None of which were magically beamed from invisible gods. 🙂 Don’t confuse common decency and stable societies with the myriad outcomes of our actions.
LikeLike
Anti-all-abortion hasn’t even been a moral standard for Christians through time. It isn’t even a moral standard now.
It also has many ramifications that worsen life and could be equated with mass-torture in the same way you equate abortion with genocide.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well pointed out, Jason. In fact the bible (read Yahweh) is an advocate of abortion, along with a great many things humans find heinous these days.
Yet, if you watch the God Delusion (it’s on Youtube) there is a Christian who advocates the death penalty for adultery. He believes the state should also be petitioned to institute the law.
And he considers this is perfectly moral and in accordance with his god’s law.
Should there not be a law against promoting this level of insanity?
LikeLike
Jason,
That simply isn’t true.
The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament teaches that human life begins in the womb and is sacred.
And murdering someone because you hallucinate that they are going to live a life of torture is truly ridiculous.
LikeLike
So you’re saying forcing new baby people into situations with others who are already in great despair with the inability to afford even basic living needs is a good thing to do?
So tell me about how you support these people you are trying to force into even more dangerous circumstances.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We can use you as our moral standard. How many crack babies have you adopted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jason,
We live in a welfare state.
Everybody has food, TV, mobile phone and a place to live.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What utopia do you live in?
LikeLike
Jason,
I live in the utopia where the powerless, voiceless unborn have the same right to life as you or I.
What if your own mother had said, “Jason is going to grow up a deprived, demented little bastard so I think I’ll just save everyone (and most of all his mommy) the trouble and put the little critter out of his misery.”
LikeLike
I would think she made a wise choice. I personally wouldn’t have even has the self-awareness to know I had existed, so it wouldn’t matter to me.
My question was in regards to your claim that everyone has food, phone, and a place to live. Where is that utopia?
LikeLike
Jason,
If you think your mother murdering you in the womb is a wise choice, you’ve got a server self-loathing problem.
And that’s just it.
You people hate yourselves deeply and dearly and can’t wait to spread our hatred of self to others.
The Christian Way is to reject such madness.
LikeLike
Again, what about the utopia you spoke of? You want to force births and leave the children and mothers to suffer. What kind of person are you to want to inflict such suffering on others?
Self-loathing? No, I’m okay with myself. I’m here, I’m doing the best I can. If I wasn’t, then it simply wouldn’t have mattered to me.
LikeLike
Jason,
The welfare state is hardly utopia.
If you think having a TV, a mobile phone and enough to eat is utopia you really do need to get out more.
LikeLike
You’re the one saying that a life that good exists for everyone and that it should be fine to force unwanted children into.
Compared to what I am aware of for the extreme poor, that is utopia.
Again, where is it that things are that good for all of the poor?
LikeLike
Jason,
Good.
So now, in addition to unborn children, you are advocating the genocide of everyone on welfare.
At least you are consistent, murderously so to be sure.
LikeLike
When did I suggest that?
You’re the one advocating for even more torturous conditions to be placed on the poor.
What is it with Christians wanting to put words into their opponents’ mouth when their opponents are making a point they can’t answer to?
LikeLike
Belief in a god does not change the morality of any behavior.
LikeLike
Evolution!
Nothing wrong with genocide, infanticide or slavery. It’s just what nature does.
LikeLike
Good grief…I thought I had cleared up all the dogs poo already. Dammit, there’s always one you miss, right?
LikeLike
What are you talking about?
We’re on the same page, buddy! Evolution explains it all. No intelligence necessary.
LikeLike
Wow …talking dog poo!
Amazing.
Buddy? You have GOT to be kidding, right?
LikeLike
You know I’m not.
We’ve been through it. Now you’re gonna pretend like it never happened?
I got screen shots!
Evolution!
Genocide!
Slavery!
…It’s great to be a de-convert!
LikeLike
I meant you are not my ”buddy”.
I thought you never left your sty?
Does Mandy know you’re out playing without her?
LikeLike
We’re best buddies! Bound together by evolution! It’s bigger than both us us!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That thought will give me nightmares.
But it is also the funniest thing you have ever written … I almost laughed.
Have you been snuffling for truffles, Bunion?
LikeLike
I’ve got screenshots, too… Here’s one, it’s you conceding there’s no such thing as an “objective” truth
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/GOD%20CHANGES_zpsmmmoyd6x.jpg?t=1487842202
LikeLike
Exactly.
Evolution is all that exists.
You still believe in God though…
LikeLike
Great, so you’re comfortable with the fact that there is no objective truth.
You have admited as such.
So, let’s not see you pen another post or comment trying to say there is, OK.
LikeLike
As long as you don’t pen any more comments about the evils of slavery, racism or religion.
LikeLike
So, you support slavery now?
Mmmm, that sseemss to contradict this
LikeLike
There is no god.
There is no sin.
There is only evolution.
No reason to condemn slavery.
You are sounding like a religious zealot.
LikeLike
John Branyan, you’re just getting yourself all tied up in knots of your own making… your own deception… your own inconsistency.
I have you on record, which raises the question:
Has lying to yourself always come easy to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You gonna tell me it’s a sin to lie?
You religious people are hilarious!
LikeLike
Lying can be right, under the right conditions, to protect a person from injury, for example.
What you’re doing (lying to yourself from one day to the next) is just grossly undignified.
LikeLike
You’re a religious fundamentalist.
There is no such thing as sin.
LikeLike
True, your lies are not necessary horrid, you’re only disgracing and shaming yourself after all.
LikeLike
That is not objectively true.
You are a religious whacko.
LikeLike
And you’re a walking self-contradiction.
So, again, let’s not see another silly post or comment trying to proclaim there is something like an “objective” moral truth when you’ve already conceded there is no such thing.
Preserve your dignity, John.
LikeLike
You pearl clutching fundamentalist. No objective moral truth means nothing wrong with contradictions.
Are you going to keep telling religious folks not to indoctrinate their kids?
Evolution!
There is no sin!
LikeLike
Sure, nothing wrong with contradictions if you have no self-respect, no dignity, no sense of self-worth.
LikeLike
Evolution made me.
Made you too.
Period.
LikeLike
Contradictions are your insistence that there is no such thing as sin, but accusing me of bad behavior.
That’s contradictory.
It’s okay though. Evolution made you like that. You have no free will.
LikeLike
Branyan, I can understand you think there is a magic measuring stick of good and bad floating out there somewhere, but are you so steeped in this delusion that you can’t acknowledge that humans have ways of relatively measuring our behaviour – on scales of harm or usefulness? I think it’s a useful point thought that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in terms of behaviour labels are redundant, they are just an easy shortcut.
LikeLike
Ark,
It is not the moral standard’s fault that man has trouble living according to that standard.
But it is undeniable that life in Western Civilization in general and the United States in particular is awesome.
LikeLike
Especially since you wiped out mst of them darn pesky Redskins … thank y’Jesus! And you Christians got all them damn ungrateful heathen niggers to pick cotton for y’all … all according to the Lawd.
Ye haw…
Er … what moral standard? This is what we are trying to establish but y’all is slipperier than a lubed up Priest in a young boys’ dormitory.
LikeLike
Ark,
That’s right!
I’m free, drive around in a chariot fit for a god, aka an automobile, can vacation anyplace in the world I fancy and it’s all because General Custer killed the Indians.
You’ve got to be kidding!
Unfortunately, you are actually quite serious.
LikeLike
@SOM
Do you really need to be reminded of the abortion ritual and the other references in the Old Testament yet again ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark,
The topic set by Violet is about objective vs subjective standards of morality.
All you do in your comments is continually change the subject or fixate on the irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Morality it is. And I have been asking you to offer your god’s ”list”, for want of a better word,or Divine Law if you prefer the doctrinal term, and you have sidestepped every time.
I am beginning to suspect you have no idea what it ( Your god’s moral list) is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
For your reading pleasure I recommend Deuteronomy chapters 5 & 6. God establishes a covenant with his Chosen People, the Hebrews.
Jesus, restates the Commandments in the New Testament as he goes about establishing the New Covenant with mankind.
LikeLike
Yahweh and Moses.
Smile … two fictional characters and you expect what sort of reaction from me SOM?
LikeLike
Ark,
You are correct again.
It is too much for me to expect a reasonable conversation with you.
LikeLike
*Smile*
The marvelous thing about online discussions with indoctrinated fundamentalists is their arguments all expose their ignorance and why so many eventually deconvert.
LikeLike
Ark,
You shouldn’t talk about yourself that way.
I answered all your questions and all you could do was rewind the tape you have playing in your head all the time.
There exist no people more indoctrinated than atheists.
LikeLike
Yes, you did… but the ten commandments are simply as adaption of earlier law codes, maybe even part of the Hammurabi Code.
This is a given, and you should have the integrity to acknowledge it.
And Yahweh and Moses are fictional.
Martin Noth once speculated that Moses may have been at least a composite of early Israelite heroes, but this view no longer holds.
And if you are not aware of the scholarly view regarding the origins of the god YHWH then you should take time to study.
LikeLike
Ark,
That is simply a ridiculous reply.
You ask for the list.
I have you the list.
You deny the list with stupendous irrationality.
Since you are now far into the realm of atheist stupid, I must bid you adieu.
LikeLike
You list the ten commandments as your god’s ultimate moral code and yu do not have the integrity to acknowledge they are not even original!
LikeLike
LikeLike
The poor Branyan’s, they need to believe in some objective grounding, yet they are forced to admit their Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, changes it’s mind… which is to say, it evolves, it learns, it adapts, it grows, which all sounds awfully like human culture
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/GOD%20CHANGES_zpsmmmoyd6x.jpg?t=1487842202
LikeLike
John,
Being able to change your mind is a sign of reason.
The Bible illustrates the nature of God, who is reasonable.
That means he can change his mind.
You are trying to turn God into an animal who acts through instinct or a witless force of nature not subject to any rules.
Of course such thinking is primitive paganism.
But atheism is nothing more than primitive paganism as you so eloquently illustrate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, got it… Yhwh changes its mind. It evolves, it grows, it adapts, and it learns.
That brings us to three points:
1) There is no objective truth.
2) Yhwh cannot be a just god, because justice is dependent on consistency.
3) The god you’re describing sounds awfully like human culture.
LikeLike
John,
Your primitive paganism makes you incapable of comprehending God who is reasonable.
It is simple common sense that a father reasoning with his children has nothing to do with the father evolving in any way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reasoning with children as in wiping out nearly all of them in a massive flood?
Is God encouraging the drowning of disobedient children?
LikeLike
Jason,
The Bible is clear about why God sent the flood.
If you can’t understand that kind of clarity, there certainly isn’t anything I can say.
LikeLike
God lost all control of His children so He drowned them all. It’s perfectly clear. That is God’s first example of how to reason with your children.
I guess God was a little slow in coming up with the self-sacrifice to atone for sins thing. Oh well, nobody’s perfect!
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 3 people
Do you think they’re missing church or blogging during the sermon? You have to read this comment from SOM:
LikeLike
Saw it earlier. He’s a sparkling gem, a genius, and perhaps the greatest practitioner of
Perhaps the Branyan’s have stopped going to church? They don’t seem to like Yhwh at all.
LikeLike
Do you think they’re starting their own cult? It’s really difficult to get answers out of them. Mrsmcmommy just explained: “My dad’s method is to ask questions to help others think through things themselves, rather than giving preachy answers. That’s why it’s insulting (and dead wrong) to assume he asks questions to avoid or play a game.
It’s not a game. It’s precisely the opposite of the simplistic, black and white thinking you are opposed to.”
Kind of sad if your questions don’t make sense and you can’t even explain why you’re asking them … but I’ll say that safely over here where they’ll never read it, because they seem kind of touchy. 🙂
LikeLike
A tad cagey about answering questions, yes. I guess they loathe being caught out in their own lies and contradictory positions.
I just can’t get how this person actually calls himself a comedian. Who does he play to, primary schools and hospices?
LikeLike
Ark and Carmen have replied to you at the bottom of the post. They couldn’t find the reply button. Sigh.
LikeLike
Now that you’ve replied, I see the ‘Reply’ button violet wisp. 🙂 (not meaning to imply anything negative about your setup, it’s just that I frequently have trouble with comments going willy-nilly – I take the blame. I’m not very tech-savvy!)
LikeLike
What an unfortunate discussion. Generally it’s better to set aside the word morality because it’s been appropriated by various ideological groups. As you mentioned it can be deemed immoral for a woman to show her face (or ankle) in some cultures. We do best by focusing on the matter of the study of ethics. Much more interesting as it’s unrelated to dogma. In fact to have a discussion at all the first thing we have to do is set out definitions and aims- Eudaimonia? The golden rule? Confucius? How do we define harm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Merveilleux,
Morality and ethics go hand in hand.
You can’t have one without the other.
Otherwise all you have is the sound of one hand clapping.
LikeLike
“Generally it’s better to set aside the word morality because it’s been appropriated by various ideological groups.”
Kind of strange suggestion to set it aside, when the whole point of the post is explaining to Christians what ‘morality’ is in the real world. You have a stab if you don’t like my post. 🙂
LikeLike
Substituting it for the word ethics sets aside religious dogma.
LikeLike
But doesn’t address their key area confusion.
LikeLike
Pingback: Absolute Truth and the Problem of Evil… | See, there's this thing called biology...
“And this is where our moral judgements suddenly become terribly complex. Should we switch off life-saving machines keeping people in pain alive? Would that be killing or showing kindess? Should we bomb people we consider enemies in the pursuit of peace? Would short-term murder save more lives in the long-term? ‘Morality’ can almost never be the simple ‘yes’-‘no’/’right’-‘wrong’ choice that some Christians would like it to be, and this is one of the reasons that encouraging them to challenge their thinking is so important.
Some Christians agree up to this point, but then guided by their archaic understand of ‘morality’, get super excited about their delusion that humans could never agree on a ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ course of action without the presence of an invisible god beaming out ‘good’. This notion is as ridiculous as it seems. Our shared sense of morality as human beings is guided by our understanding of the impact of our actions, which is influenced by our naturally evolved empathy (understanding and caring about other people’s suffering) mixed with, among other things, the logic of the Golden Rule, the observation of which ensures a more pleasant society for everyone. It’s not magic – it’s simply putting ourselves in others’ shoes, caring about how they feel and wanting better living conditions for those we love.”
I read through your post a couple of times and didn’t notice one key word. Perhaps I missed it? The word is “values”. Morality/ethics/whatnot are determined by the values of society. Values require an objective measure for judgement.
As you allude, some societies have different value systems but all societies (at least the ones that want to last for any length of time) must have an underlying set of shared core values. For the same reason everyone driving on a road must agree to the road rules.
LikeLike
Thanks, that’s a good point. However, the people making the initial comment want something a bit more than that. This is the list you can find further up the post:
Everywhere.
All the time.
Always.
Across culture.
All people.
Absolutely.
Absolute right and wrong.
LikeLike
Deaf schools … and the sign language helper repeats the same message:
WTF …. WTF
LikeLiked by 1 person
He did mention he works apologetics clubs, whatever they are.
LikeLike
Does he keep apologizing for not being funny?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, that’s funny!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just read this one, it’s pretty good!
“There’s that sound again…the terrible sound of your pantomime collapsing.” 😀 Maybe he’s funny after all.
LikeLike
You kidding? He stole that line from me. He’s just repeating what i have said… Very Grade Three humour. I bet you he’s also using my long eared jerboa jokes.
LikeLike
I’m shocked! 😎 What’s your jerboa joke?
LikeLike
Depends on the conversation at any given time. I do have this Jerboa line in my new book which is kinda’ nice:
LikeLiked by 1 person
JZ, I have no idea where this comment is going to end up on the thread, but to respond to your comment (about Branyan), “Who does he play to, primary schools and hospices?, I’d say that he probably performs to other deluded (to use violetwisp’s accurate descriptor) individuals. Consistently. Then his whole ‘schtick’ becomes self-aggrandizing. . . the only time he ever runs up against any serious pushback is online and then he just goes into his ambiguous-thinking-he’s-funny routine as a deflection. It is head-shakingly maddening. Kudos to both of you for trying to ‘reason’ with that kind of inanity. One thing about it; he’s put CS and SoM into a whole different category . . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
At SOM is funny, even brilliant at times.
LikeLike
Oops, * At least SOM is funny…
LikeLiked by 2 people
With so much evolved cultural diversity, you’d think there would be at least ONE culture where they award medals for butchering kids.
John Branyan – Professional Comedian.
Not surprising, there have been several,( we know of) and probably numerous cultures that have sacrificed children, which is merely another word for butchering.
What is surprising is Branyan’s faux outrage – which he should probably shove up his arse – especially as his own religion, Christianity, was at one time a believer in child sacrifice, burying many children – alive – in the foundations of certain buildings to ward away demons etc.
While not (as far as I am aware) being awarded literal medals for this practice, proponents of this and other somewhat dubious christian behavior, were all promised a far greater prize than a medal: eternal life in heaven next to Jesus who would no doubt smile and praise such behaviour as godly and holy.
Ah, yes, as can be quite easily seen with people like Branyan, when it comes to the morality of their god; Yahweh and/or Jesus, the pomme does not fall far from the tree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just wanted to pop by and ask if anyone else noticed JB’s edit on the linked post. Apparently he wants foot rubs from JZ.
Sexual tension would explain a LOT of why JB treats JZ the way he does. I think a mystery has been solved.
LikeLiked by 3 people
1. Morality is relative.
R. Eating babies is okay or .
The problem is that making absolutist statements without context is unhelpful and distracting.
1.Religious indoctrination of children is a good thing.
R. At one point in time humanity needed an agent of social cohesion to keep itself going. So sure, more power to zealotry.
R2. At this point in time, it is unnecessary, in most cases as the historical context has changed.
From a selfish gene point of view any human social construct – religious or otherwise – that allows genetic information to be successfully transmitted (more the better) to the next generation is ‘good’ thing.
Evolution, being the driver of our progress through time, seems a rather blunt force instrument – the only ‘moral’ standard is getting the genetic information to the next generation.
Looking for a gold standard past this seems like trying firmly nail jello to a wall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right and wrong are at the opposite poles of the same thing, and there is a very large middle.
LikeLike