How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:52 am

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:33 am
Very glad to hear that OG. Steven Anderson the Baptist Church pastor from Arizona seems to have different views on blacks and gays. Also the Westboro Baptist Church is a whole other story. I'm sure there must be dozens of churches like these.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:37 pm
Never heard of Anderson.

Hear what your Baptist brother says about Barak Obama and gays according to the Bible at around 10:42 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0eCagNIGJU
As for Westboro, that's not a church. It's a family trust posing as a church so that they can sue people for defamation.
It looks like they do a pretty good job of posing as a church.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:26 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:52 am
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:33 am
Very glad to hear that OG. Steven Anderson the Baptist Church pastor from Arizona seems to have different views on blacks and gays. Also the Westboro Baptist Church is a whole other story. I'm sure there must be dozens of churches like these.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:37 pm
Never heard of Anderson.

Hear what your Baptist brother says about Barak Obama and gays according to the Bible at around 10:42 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0eCagNIGJU
As for Westboro, that's not a church. It's a family trust posing as a church so that they can sue people for defamation.
It looks like they do a pretty good job of posing as a church.
You know, I think that racist South African that I met in Singapore was an atheist.
Therefore all atheists are racists.
And South Africans.
And live in Singapore.

(As an exercise in logic, why don't you explain the fallacies involved here? Hint, they start with "Fallacy of" and end with "Category.")
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:46 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:37 am
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Abraham lied to his own son, telling him that God would provide the lamb for the burnt offering after his son innocently asked him what was going on.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:06 pm
God did provide the lamb. That is one of the parallels with what happened on Mt. Moriah 2000 years later.
Maybe in the original version he actually murdered Isaac.
Only if you read it in the Original Klingon. [/sarcasm]
19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
Issac is never spoken to again by Abraham,
Um, we've talked about Biblical omissions. Even if the Bible were not written with brevity in mind, an absence of mention is not a mention of absence. Argument from Silence fallacy.
but he is written about again in the next chapter. Isaac's life is paralleled from Abraham’s life. Abraham signs a pact with the king Avimelech and so does Isaac. Abraham breaks a commandment and lies about his wife Sarah being his sister to avoid being killed by Avimelech, and Isaac tells the same lie about his wife Rebecca. This is certainly a weird story. The Gods who tell Abraham to sacrifice his son are called “Elohim” and the “angel of God” that wants to save Isaac is called YHWH.
If you'd like an outline of the book of Genesis, I can recommend a few books. For example, Chuck Smith's Commentary 2000 is rather good on Genesis in particular...
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
This is child abuse at the highest level, and it was all instigated by God. He should have had the power of omniscience and had no need for any such "test". Imagine Isaac's immense fear for his life and the loathing of his father when he realised that he had been tricked by this crazed fool.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:06 pm
The point was not so much to test Abraham as to lay the prophetic foundation for the crucifixion.
How do you know that?
Divine Revelation.
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Yet Christians reading this are often in awe of God's mercy, even though he thought up this absurd test. What would it prove anyway? That he was a servile sycophant that would murder his own son on request? Mentally ill people would read this and think that they should accept and obey voices in their head that they imagine was from their god, regarding it logical to murder without question.
Jepthah's sacrifice was not requested, ordained, or honored by God. It is included in the Bible as a bad example, that is, don't make rash pagan oaths before God; he's not that kind of god.
No, maybe not, but a truly benevolent god would be upfront about his prior knowledge that would end up in a senseless death of an innocent victim. Or was she just "collateral damage" to a "greater good" of teaching Jepthah a lesson? A much better lesson would be of God showing his mercy by revealing why it wasn't a great idea and saving the waste of a young life. I guess he thought his ego was more important.
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Do you know what? A truly loving, benevolent and omniscient god upon hearing Jepthah say: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Should have stopped him in his tracks and said, "No, there is no need to make a vow like that as that would be your sweet innocent daughter. If you killed her that would be a terrible mistake and a violation of my absolute moral commandment, "thou shalt not kill". We both know what the penalty for that is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Jepthah was supposed to already know that.
A good teacher/father would have reminded him of his error and said it wasn't necessary in the circumstances. Or at least informed his seemingly unimportant nameless daughter to keep running from her madman father once she made for the hills. Where was God's mercy for her?
Since you don't like Sunday School answers, I'll answer from a secular source, namely Herodotus (paraphrased):

Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, exiled himself for ten years so that he would not be criticized like Draco before him. In his travels, he visited Croesus, the wealthiest and most fortunate king to ever live. On seeing Solon enter his hall, Croesus cried out, "Tell me, Solon, who is Olbios? (Lucky, favored by the gods)"

Croesus expected Solon to answer, "You, O Croesus, are surely the most olbios of all who live." But instead, Croesus told a tale of a simple man who lived a plain but uneventful life, had plenty, and died in his sleep, an aged grandfather. Croesus was not satisfied. So Solon spoke again.

Solon told of two sons, whose mother was to attend a festival of women, celebrating Hera. But as they coupled the ox to the cart, that she might ride to the festival, the ox died. So the two sons, not wishing their mother to be dishonored, took the place of the ox and drew the cart to the festival. The women there beheld this and honored them greatly, that they had sacrificed so much effort for their mother. The boys were fed and given wine, and were permitted to rest in the coolness of the temple of Hera, where both died from their ordeal.

These, argued Solon, were olbios, for they died well, in great honor, and at the height of their fame and glory.

Is it not also so of the daughter of Jepthah? Does she not stand to this day as a monument to her father's foolishness? Would you instead have her die an arthritic hag, shriveled with age, clawing for breath? Is that what you call mercy? So how then is she injured by her death? And if we assume ad argumentum that she entered eternity thereafter, how much moreso did she receive better than what she gave away?

So the argument fails.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm

Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:26 pm
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:52 am
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:33 am
Very glad to hear that OG. Steven Anderson the Baptist Church pastor from Arizona seems to have different views on blacks and gays. Also the Westboro Baptist Church is a whole other story. I'm sure there must be dozens of churches like these.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:37 pm
Never heard of Anderson.

Hear what your Baptist brother says about Barak Obama and gays according to the Bible at around 10:42 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0eCagNIGJU
As for Westboro, that's not a church. It's a family trust posing as a church so that they can sue people for defamation.
It looks like they do a pretty good job of posing as a church.
You know, I think that racist South African that I met in Singapore was an atheist.
Therefore all atheists are racists.
And South Africans.
And live in Singapore.

(As an exercise in logic, why don't you explain the fallacies involved here? Hint, they start with "Fallacy of" and end with "Category.")
Are you saying that all Baptist church members haven't the same morals, even though they are taught the same objective morals? Isn't that strange? Is that why there are much many more Christians in jail than atheists, even when allowing for the general population levels of both? It looks like these objective moral commands are falling on deaf ears, or they were flawed from the beginning.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:46 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:26 pm
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:52 am


Hear what your Baptist brother says about Barak Obama and gays according to the Bible at around 10:42 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0eCagNIGJU

It looks like they do a pretty good job of posing as a church.
You know, I think that racist South African that I met in Singapore was an atheist.
Therefore all atheists are racists.
And South Africans.
And live in Singapore.

(As an exercise in logic, why don't you explain the fallacies involved here? Hint, they start with "Fallacy of" and end with "Category.")
Are you saying that all Baptist church members haven't the same morals, even though they are taught the same objective morals? Isn't that strange? Is that why there are much many more Christians in jail than atheists, even when allowing for the general population levels of both? It looks like these objective moral commands are falling on deaf ears, or they were flawed from the beginning.
No, I am saying that not all Baptists, of their own free will, choose to follow the objective morals that they know to be true. And it's moot since we are not under the law, but under grace.

More Christians in Jail than Atheists? Well, let's assume that to be a correct statistic (I'm not going to bother holding a survey). You will have heard that there are three kinds of untruth: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

So let's examine this one. First, how were Christians and Atheists identified? By self reference? By stated preference at intake? I've actually heard of inmates identifying as Jewish because the kosher meals are better; I've also heard that one local jail has the policy that if you weren't Jewish when you went in, you can't convert.

This bears on the statistic because a person can be considered "Christian" if he or she was born in a Latin American country, for example, regardless of actual religious practice if any. Also, in some regions (middle east, for example) anyone who is neither Muslim nor Jewish is automatically "Christian." Thus how the groups were defined and where the statistic originated bear on its accuracy.

Second, assuming the survey to be accurately categorized, why are there more Christians in Jail? Is it because more followers of Christ rob banks? Or is it because Jail is a good place for introspection, repentance, and religious conversion? Further, suppose that the survey looked only at jail intake stated religions: This could mean that Christians commit more crimes, or it could mean that Christians, having committed a crime, are more likely to confess or to plead guilty. And cetera.

But assuming that it means that more Christians commit crimes: So what?

The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection. Which is not a license to keep sinning (Romans 6-8) but instead reason to turn from sin and try to live as God intended: Micah 6:8 -- Be just, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.

So the statistic fails to make any kind of point, and even if it did, so what?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:40 am

So, retreating back from several layers of digressions, let's consider a question that arose many pages ago, and apply a logical format to it.

One way to arrive at the truth is to lay out all of the possible solutions to a problem... that is, what everyone everywhere thinks might be the answer, plus a few that we simply pull out of thin air, and then let's consider each one, and finally attempt to assign truth values.

If you've been reading Raymond Smullyan's What is the Name of This Book? or The Lady or the Tiger? you will have seen opportunities for this sort of reasoning in the puzzles presented. So this will be nothing new to you. We often see literary heroes reason this way, and Arthur Doyle puts these words into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes*:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So let us see if we can apply Doyle's law to the question of human morality.

Definitions: We use morality to mean those sets of rules by which we determine if our behavior is good or bad behavior. We use good to mean any of three things: Pleasant (experientially good), moral (following a set of rules), or holy (spiritually good).

We immediately see that there are two possible choices at the highest viewpoint: that we make the rules ourselves, or that the rules are somehow made for us by the nature of our reality. Thus we have the first choice:

I. Morality is subjective, or
II. Morality is objective.

We also see immediately that the frame of reference is an important factor in determining the rules. For example, suppose that we attend an event which has strict codes of conduct – A weekend business retreat associated with our employer, for example. There will of course be sets of rules. One may/may not bring a spouse. One may/may not dress casually. There may be rules on the amount of alcohol one may consume, or which sub-events (meetings, etc.) one must attend. Some of these rules will be clear, others will be subtle.

From our standpoint as the employee, we will perceive the rules as objective. They apply as much to us as to the fellow whose office is across from us, or the lady whose office is down the hall. We are all expected to be on time for dinner, to dress “business casual,” and to behave with a degree of decorum.

Now the organizers of the event will have set these rules. To them, these rules are subjective, in some part – they will have chosen that all employees attend a minimum of three breakout meetings and consume no more than three alcoholic drinks per evening. At the same time, some parts of the rules will be objective, even to them. They cannot permit nor condone any violation of relevant law, such as disabling the smoke alarms and high-diving into the pool from the fifth floor.

In turn, at the government level, these rules will be subjective and arbitrary: There are other nations where smoke alarms are not mandatory, and where diving off of a building into the pool is acceptable behavior.

So we need to further define the degree of subjectivity in our moral universe.

I. Morality is subjective
… A. Morality is absolutely subjective, and we may do as seems right in our own eyes
… B. Morality is subjective, and yet we agree upon a common morality for society
… C. Morality is subjective, but we all know what’s right and wrong, now don’t we?

Keep in mind that we’re not assigning truth values to any of these rabbit holes; we’re merely mapping out the warren.

II. Objective Morality
… A. Morality is absolutely objective and the rules are external to our universe.
… B. Morality is absolutely objective and the rules are shaped by our universe.
… C. Morality is objective from our perspective, but subjective to a higher (divine) authority within our universe.
… D. Morality is objective from our perspective, but subjective to a higher (human) authority within our universe.
… E. Morality is objective, and you blokes had best do as I say.
… F. We all know what the rules are, just follow them.

And for thoroughness’ sake, I will propose a third “highest case” which is:

III. It really doesn’t matter if we’re moral or not; morality is merely an illusion.

Now you may object that some of these cases overlap, and that is true. We wish to be thorough, and at the same time we wish not to beg the question, so we will resist defining our cases too thoroughly at this point. They should find further definition as we move along.

Moving to the third tier:

I.A.1. … and others may do what is right in their own eyes.
… 2. … and we may judge others (but not call them to account according to our rules)
… 3. … and we may call them to account for violating what is right in our eyes.
I.B.1. … and we as a society may call others to account within our society
… 2. … and we as a society may call other societies to account for breaking our rules
… 3. … and we as a society may not call others to account for violations of any rules.
I.C.1. … and what I do is right; what you do is wrong. You should be ashamed.
… 2. … and what we do is right; what others do is wrong. They should be ashamed.
… 3. … Hey, we’ve got to do what’s best for the children, right?

II.A.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.B.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.C.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.D.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II. E.1 … Or else.
II. F.1 … No, not those rules, you dirty rat!
… 2. … In other words, do what I do.

III. … And this line of reason is a dead end.

It should be obvious at this point that III. is the same as I.A.1, and that II.E. is the same as II.D, and that II.F. is really the same as I.C. which in turn is very nebulous. And yet there are people who hold to each of these positions, and will argue for the distinctions between them.

So before we go any further, let me ask if anyone perceives a turn that we have missed, that is, a position (so far as the third tier goes) that is not outlined, however generally, above.
__________________________________________
* In truth, those words most likely belong to Dr. Bell, a brilliant Scottish physician and Doyle's one-time mentor in the medical arts. Bell is likely the model on whom Doyle based Holmes.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Rian » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:46 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Rian wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:03 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
I can speak for the Baptist churches in my local area.

The local association of Baptist churches, which covers the West Coast from just below San Francisco to just above Santa Barbara, and inland to the first mountain ranges...
Are you in mid/northern California, Og3? I'm a SoCal girl, and so glad to be back home after an 11-year sojourn in the (neighboring) desert of Arizona, where you can literally fry an egg on the sidewalk in the summer *gag*
Salinas, near Monterey.

What part of SoCal?
Ventura county, north of LA.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:13 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm
Are you saying that all Baptist church members haven't the same morals, even though they are taught the same objective morals? Isn't that strange? Is that why there are much many more Christians in jail than atheists, even when allowing for the general population levels of both? It looks like these objective moral commands are falling on deaf ears, or they were flawed from the beginning.
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:26 pm
No, I am saying that not all Baptists, of their own free will, choose to follow the objective morals that they know to be true.
Why would anyone risk their eternal salvation by breaking your god's moral commands if they knew them to be true? It seems to me that either the commands were not compelling or their god was not believable. Both views don't bode well for the messages that were sent or the veracity of the sender.
More Christians in Jail than Atheists? Well, let's assume that to be a correct statistic (I'm not going to bother holding a survey).

You don't need to, they already have done at least one. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons released an April 2013 survey of 218,167 prisoners that reports .02% of prisoners are atheists. You read that right. Not 2%, or even .2 percent, but .02% of American prisoners are atheists.

Which is even lower than what Ricky Gervais quipped on Twitter;
If all the Atheists & Agnostics left America, they'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences & less than 1% of the prison population.
First, how were Christians and Atheists identified? By self reference? By stated preference at intake? I've actually heard of inmates identifying as Jewish because the kosher meals are better; I've also heard that one local jail has the policy that if you weren't Jewish when you went in, you can't convert.
Yeah it can be read into whatever you like. But it sure shoots a hole into
Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
which asserts that atheists are fools and vile people. This goes a long way to debunk the myth that a person can't be good without a god.

It also means that 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners committing crimes and going to prison are religious and not atheists.
This bears on the statistic because a person can be considered "Christian" if he or she was born in a Latin American country, for example, regardless of actual religious practice if any. Also, in some regions (middle east, for example) anyone who is neither Muslim nor Jewish is automatically "Christian." Thus how the groups were defined and where the statistic originated bear on its accuracy.
It can also mean that atheists that had parents that were Catholic for example would also list as Catholic, even if they were actually atheists.
Second, assuming the survey to be accurately categorized, why are there more Christians in Jail? Is it because more followers of Christ rob banks? Or is it because Jail is a good place for introspection, repentance, and religious conversion? Further, suppose that the survey looked only at jail intake stated religions: This could mean that Christians commit more crimes, or it could mean that Christians, having committed a crime, are more likely to confess or to plead guilty. And cetera.

But assuming that it means that more Christians commit crimes: So what?
It may also mean that Christians were less educated and got caught or came from lower income families that couldn't afford decent legal representation. Look, I'm not saying that being religious means that you are more likely to be a crim, but rather atheists aren't all low lives without morals. If you become religious just to be a better person, that ain't necessarily the case. Don't get me started about how the most Christian nation in the world is also the most violent. Have a look at the most atheist countries in the world like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Australia. Check out the numbers of violent deaths compared to the holier than thou USA.
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection. Which is not a license to keep sinning (Romans 6-8) but instead reason to turn from sin and try to live as God intended: Micah 6:8 -- Be just, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.

So the statistic fails to make any kind of point, and even if it did, so what?
What I'm saying are the absolute morals that you are supposedly receiving from your deity aren't working too well, are they? Imagine if 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners were to be rehabilitated using humanistic educational classes. We might be able to make the Earth a better place OG. We just need to get more atheists into your political system. Turn up your speakers and chill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgFZfRVaww
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:57 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:40 am
So, retreating back from several layers of digressions, let's consider a question that arose many pages ago, and apply a logical format to it.

One way to arrive at the truth is to lay out all of the possible solutions to a problem... that is, what everyone everywhere thinks might be the answer, plus a few that we simply pull out of thin air, and then let's consider each one, and finally attempt to assign truth values.

If you've been reading Raymond Smullyan's What is the Name of This Book? or The Lady or the Tiger? you will have seen opportunities for this sort of reasoning in the puzzles presented. So this will be nothing new to you. We often see literary heroes reason this way, and Arthur Doyle puts these words into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes*:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So let us see if we can apply Doyle's law to the question of human morality.

Definitions: We use morality to mean those sets of rules by which we determine if our behavior is good or bad behavior. We use good to mean any of three things: Pleasant (experientially good), moral (following a set of rules), or holy (spiritually good).

We immediately see that there are two possible choices at the highest viewpoint: that we make the rules ourselves, or that the rules are somehow made for us by the nature of our reality. Thus we have the first choice:

I. Morality is subjective, or
II. Morality is objective.

We also see immediately that the frame of reference is an important factor in determining the rules. For example, suppose that we attend an event which has strict codes of conduct – A weekend business retreat associated with our employer, for example. There will of course be sets of rules. One may/may not bring a spouse. One may/may not dress casually. There may be rules on the amount of alcohol one may consume, or which sub-events (meetings, etc.) one must attend. Some of these rules will be clear, others will be subtle.

From our standpoint as the employee, we will perceive the rules as objective. They apply as much to us as to the fellow whose office is across from us, or the lady whose office is down the hall. We are all expected to be on time for dinner, to dress “business casual,” and to behave with a degree of decorum.

Now the organizers of the event will have set these rules. To them, these rules are subjective, in some part – they will have chosen that all employees attend a minimum of three breakout meetings and consume no more than three alcoholic drinks per evening. At the same time, some parts of the rules will be objective, even to them. They cannot permit nor condone any violation of relevant law, such as disabling the smoke alarms and high-diving into the pool from the fifth floor.

In turn, at the government level, these rules will be subjective and arbitrary: There are other nations where smoke alarms are not mandatory, and where diving off of a building into the pool is acceptable behavior.

So we need to further define the degree of subjectivity in our moral universe.

I. Morality is subjective
… A. Morality is absolutely subjective, and we may do as seems right in our own eyes
… B. Morality is subjective, and yet we agree upon a common morality for society
… C. Morality is subjective, but we all know what’s right and wrong, now don’t we?

Keep in mind that we’re not assigning truth values to any of these rabbit holes; we’re merely mapping out the warren.

II. Objective Morality
… A. Morality is absolutely objective and the rules are external to our universe.
… B. Morality is absolutely objective and the rules are shaped by our universe.
… C. Morality is objective from our perspective, but subjective to a higher (divine) authority within our universe.
… D. Morality is objective from our perspective, but subjective to a higher (human) authority within our universe.
… E. Morality is objective, and you blokes had best do as I say.
… F. We all know what the rules are, just follow them.

And for thoroughness’ sake, I will propose a third “highest case” which is:

III. It really doesn’t matter if we’re moral or not; morality is merely an illusion.

Now you may object that some of these cases overlap, and that is true. We wish to be thorough, and at the same time we wish not to beg the question, so we will resist defining our cases too thoroughly at this point. They should find further definition as we move along.

Moving to the third tier:

I.A.1. … and others may do what is right in their own eyes.
… 2. … and we may judge others (but not call them to account according to our rules)
… 3. … and we may call them to account for violating what is right in our eyes.
I.B.1. … and we as a society may call others to account within our society
… 2. … and we as a society may call other societies to account for breaking our rules
… 3. … and we as a society may not call others to account for violations of any rules.
I.C.1. … and what I do is right; what you do is wrong. You should be ashamed.
… 2. … and what we do is right; what others do is wrong. They should be ashamed.
… 3. … Hey, we’ve got to do what’s best for the children, right?

II.A.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.B.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.C.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II.D.1. … and we will be rewarded temporally if we follow those rules.
… 2. … and we will be rewarded eternally if we follow those rules.
… 3. … and we will not be rewarded, but will have the comfort that we did what’s right.
II. E.1 … Or else.
II. F.1 … No, not those rules, you dirty rat!
… 2. … In other words, do what I do.

III. … And this line of reason is a dead end.

It should be obvious at this point that III. is the same as I.A.1, and that II.E. is the same as II.D, and that II.F. is really the same as I.C. which in turn is very nebulous. And yet there are people who hold to each of these positions, and will argue for the distinctions between them.

So before we go any further, let me ask if anyone perceives a turn that we have missed, that is, a position (so far as the third tier goes) that is not outlined, however generally, above.
__________________________________________
* In truth, those words most likely belong to Dr. Bell, a brilliant Scottish physician and Doyle's one-time mentor in the medical arts. Bell is likely the model on whom Doyle based Holmes.
This all seems terribly complicated OG. What about employees with disabilities? How can they follow the same objective rules if they haven't the same capabilities to follow them?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:32 am

Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with? For example:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.

Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity, causes no harm to yourself, others or the environment and minimises pain and suffering.

Do God's commands on something like homosexuality propagate justice and equality? Nope. Even though homosexuality doesn't harm anyone and involves people loving and caring for each other it's somehow "wrong". Gay marriage is condemned by most Christians, even though nothing is written against it in their instruction book. Thankfully when it was given a democratic vote in the USA and other countries like Australia it was passed to give these bullied people equal rights alongside the rights of heterosexual Christian loving couples. What was the dire consequences of these actions? Did the sky fall in? Did our society collapse in immoral ruins? Nope, it just meant that large groups of formally marginalised people finally had equality.

Could God's commands cause harm and suffering and still be good by definition? Yep. Could God have hatred for all other beings and still be "good" by definition? Absolutely!

In Christianity, God is good only by definition. God's nature has no other meaning other than what God is supposed to be. His character could be cruel, violent, intolerant and yet mesh perfectly in line with what Christians believe is his good and perfect nature. IOW whatever he does does, no matter how inconsistent with the truth values of all other ethical systems, it will still be good. And that sucks deeply.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply