Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[Joyousguard]

I am still sure exactly what this dialogue is supposed to mean. But I think one of the problems is expressed in the last questions. If rapist is a supporter subjective morality you suggest that he would have to agree that rape is wrong if the raped says that it is. But the problem with this is that it takes an objective view of morality and tries to impose it on the subjective view.

If man A claims morality is subjective and thus rape can be right he allows for the possibility of man B saying that rape is not wrong and morality is not subjective and thus anyone who suggest such is wrong. Man A must admit by his very own logic that man B is correct because if man A admits he is not correc then morality must be objective. However, if man A admits that Man B is correct then morality can not be subjective.

The way you are attempting to get around this is by saying that morality is subjective for the individual and the individual only. This is the second problem, first and foremost much of morality has to do with individuals and how they interact which means that a large portion of morality does not involve individuals alone and shoots down the concept of individuals subjective morality because the very understanding would contradict morality,

Third, if morality is subjective to only the individuals point of view then what happens when several people agree on a moral point? Is it not valid because it is no longer a moral view of the individual?

lastly, isn’t saying that morality is subjective actualy an attempt at making a moraly objective statement about the subjectivity of morality?

In the objective view an actions has to be right or wrong from all perspectives.

Not perspective at all. Moral objectivity states that morality is independent of human perspective and opinion.

With a subjective view there is no conflict if viewpoint A and viewpoint B disagree. So there is no conflict if the rapist says that rape is fine while the rapist says that rape is wrong.

That doesn’t create conflict???

Giving people the option to say you’re wrong is still the equivalent of tying your own noose.

The rapist can agree that rape is wrong from the rape person’s perspective without having to agree that it wrong from his perspective.

Objective morality may be independent of human perspective but our moral actions are not. Calling something immoral or moral to one’s own indiviidual perspective does not work because moral actions by their very ature are part of a larger whole and not of just the individual. You can not make the claim that something si sright or wrong by the own individual perspective beacuse the action is more than just individual.

Thus the rapist would have to agree that rape is wrong, but only from the raped person’s perspective (and probably a lot of other people as well) not his own.

Soon as you admit that it can be wrong from one perspective, you make the concession that it could be wrong from all perspectives. Which means that you in fact could be wrong, whichmeans your perspective and understanding are possibly wrong which is an objective understanding of morality as is the the attempt to subjectify morality as a matter of perspective. Either way you can’t escape it.

 

[Richard_Powers]

If man A claims morality is subjective and thus rape can be right he allows for the possibility of man B saying that rape is not wrong and morality is not subjective and thus anyone who suggest such is wrong. Man A must admit by his very own logic that man B is correct because if man A admits he is not correc then morality must be objective. However, if man A admits that Man B is correct then morality can not be subjective.

You seem to take the position that the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is a moral question, but that just does not follow. The question of whether morality is subjective or objective is not a moral question.

The question of whether morality is subjective is not itself a subjective question. It is an objective question. The subjective feeling Person A or Person B toward the question of whether morality is subjective is as irrelevant as either of their subjective feelings toward the question of whether water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. To answer a question of whether something is right or wrong we have to look at from a subjective perspective. You keep claiming that there is an objective standard against which these different subjective positions can be judged, but you refuse to actually produce evidence that this objective position exists. Just saying that rape of a child is objectively wrong because it is objectively wrong does not answer the question. It just begs the question.

Sorry this post is kind of a mess. I actually have to leave and will not be able to finish this post until tomorrow or late tonight.

 

[Richard_Powers]

The way you are attempting to get around this is by saying that morality is subjective for the individual and the individual only. This is the second problem, first and foremost much of morality has to do with individuals and how they interact which means that a large portion of morality does not involve individuals alone and shoots down the concept of individuals subjective morality because the very understanding would contradict morality,

I am not really clear on what your objection is here.

Third, if morality is subjective to only the individuals point of view then what happens when several people agree on a moral point? Is it not valid because it is no longer a moral view of the individual?

People come to together all the time to create moral systems all the time. Law would sort of be an example of this. Or the moral systems that different churches create. Individuals may even comprise their own moral positions even coming together with others. Now, these moral systems are not the same as a moral position but are a reflection of the moral positions of the individuals that created them.

lastly, isn’t saying that morality is subjective actualy an attempt at making a moraly objective statement about the subjectivity of morality?

It is not a moral statement anymore than saying water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius is a moral statement.

Not perspective at all. Moral objectivity states that morality is independent of human perspective and opinion.

And you continue to refuse to present any evidence that such a moral position actually exists.

Giving people the option to say you’re wrong is still the equivalent of tying your own noose.

Not at all. Saying that morality is subjective is not a moral position. A person saying that I find the idea of subjective morality morally wrong (or morally right) is making just as confused a statement as person that saying I find the idea of water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius morally wrong (or morally right).

Objective morality may be independent of human perspective but our moral actions are not. Calling something immoral or moral to one’s own indiviidual perspective does not work because moral actions by their very ature are part of a larger whole and not of just the individual. You can not make the claim that something si sright or wrong by the own individual perspective beacuse the action is more than just individual.

Saying that moral positions effect others does not show that morality is not subjective. Our views of beauty (and taste) effect others, but that does not mean they are not subjective.

Soon as you admit that it can be wrong from one perspective, you make the concession that it could be wrong from all perspectives. Which means that you in fact could be wrong, whichmeans your perspective and understanding are possibly wrong which is an objective understanding of morality as is the the attempt to subjectify morality as a matter of perspective. Either way you can’t escape it.

It could be wrong from all perspectives. Then we could objectively say that all the subjective moral positions hold this action to be wrong. But this would fall apart if a new moral position said that it was right. We can objectively look at subjective positions but that does not change the fact that they positions are at bottom subjective. I think you will see that you substitute taste in your above example as in previous examples. I know you have claimed that taste is different from morality, but you still to provide any argument to back up that position that does not just beg the question.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Sorry if the above posts are kind of a mess.

 

[Joyousguard]

First and foremost I’m not trying to avoid the evidence for objective morality but I am rather delaying it for now until we get the subjective understanding under wraps.

I am not really clear on what your objection is here.

If an act is only immoral or moral to the individuals persepctive only, how do we account for the fact that all moral action no matter the fact that it may seem to only affect the individual, in fact effects others. Almost like the concept of a butterfly flapping its wings. Each and every moral action has more than one individual involved and thus no action can be considered of only individual persepctive. Again, throw a brick off a building. Your individual persepctive automatically becomes part of the greater whole. We think of many instances as actions of the individual but do not really take into account that individual actions. Hence an action that we could consider right (acceptable) from our own perspective, such as rape, would in fact affect another person as well and thus be an action not of the individual. This action of rape has been well documented as a harmful act upon those that have been raped and all action resulting in such characteristics and results of rape have been deemed harmful and thus immoral. We can make the argument that an action of the individual has consequences that effect others and cause them harm. These actions inherently by their own very nature remove them from the individual by themselves and bring them into the realm of a greater whole.

You could probably make the argument that all action does not always involve others which may in fact be the case. However, the issue here is rape which by its very understanding does involve other people. Something that is considered immoral is usually considered so because it causes harm. Immorality and harm are insync with one another and can not be seperated. I do not wish to go far into the details, for obvious reasons, but I believe we can agree upon the fact that rape indeed is harmful. And something as harmful as rape is considered immoral by the very definition of immoral action.

From an objective truth standard, which we have agreed that objective truth does exist, harm is something that is considered bad without even having to delve into a system of morality. Burning your hand is a bad thing regardless of morality. Intentionally forcing harm upon someone is a bad thing and is defined as being immoral.

From my perspective rape is a good thing. But that would be contrary to objective truth for we know clearly that rape produces great harm. Inflicting great harm on others is defined as immoral action. Can rape ever not inflict harm? That is definetly not a study I hope anyone would ever undertake, but I think it is very unlikley that rape would ever not produce harm. That which intentionally brings harm to another individual would be immoral.

 

[Joyousguard]

People come to together all the time to create moral systems all the time. Law would sort of be an example of this. Or the moral systems that different churches create. Individuals may even comprise their own moral positions even coming together with others. Now, these moral systems are not the same as a moral position but are a reflection of the moral positions of the individuals that created them.

Something i’m trying to think out all together but don’t quite have it yet.

It is not a moral statement anymore than saying water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius is a moral statement.

The question becomes, how do you prove that morality is subjective?

And you continue to refuse to present any evidence that such a moral position actually exists.

Its on hold until this subjectivity is resolved.

Not at all. Saying that morality is subjective is not a moral position. A person saying that I find the idea of subjective morality morally wrong (or morally right) is making just as confused a statement as person that saying I find the idea of water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius morally wrong (or morally right).

Saying that murder can be wrong or right is not an attempt to objectify morality? It is acceptable to kill or not to kill is not an attempt at objectification of morality?

Saying that moral positions effect others does not show that morality is not subjective. Our views of beauty (and taste) effect others, but that does not mean they are not subjective.

(side note**** a thread was started on the definition of beauty. While I do think tatse may be a 3rd category, i think you can make a very validf argument for beauty and tatse being objective in very general terms.)

Not that it is subjective or not but that since an action inherently involves others our perspective “to only us or to only me” really loses any creedance because it involves other people.

they way you are trying to get around the argument that once you agree that morality is subjective that gives those who believe it was objective the rope to hang the argument is by saying that morality is a private affair of individual perspective. But that can not be the case because morality and moral action are not “individual anything” at all. This raises problems with the “right for me” defense in addition to the fact this “right to me” defense would mean that " is is right for me to cause pain to other people" which inherently contradicts with what we know about pain and harm unless pain and harm should be something to be sought after.

It could be wrong from all perspectives. Then we could objectively say that all the subjective moral positions hold this action to be wrong. But this would fall apart if a new moral position said that it was right. We can objectively look at subjective positions but that does not change the fact that they positions are at bottom subjective. I think you will see that you substitute taste in your above example as in previous examples. I know you have claimed that taste is different from morality, but you still to provide any argument to back up that position that does not just beg the question.

Let’s look at a car accident. A car accident happens in a very exact way. A car accident happened in the way it happened and in no other way regardless of how I view things. From my perspective it was the fault of the driver in the lead car for pulling in front of the other car. From the persepctive of a traffic cam it actually turned out that it was the driver in the back car. My perspective turned out to be wrong. We all know that perspectives in this world can be wrong. So, are morally perspectives any different? What makes a perspective or view of a car accident and its possobility of being wrong different than a moral perspective of an individual?

 

[Joyousguard]

An interesting point I found:

“(subjective moralists)they have no right to claim that they should remain unharmed by other individuals who adhere to a subjectively determined or culturally-bound moral theory which does not regard causing harm to others, or at least moral relativists, as wrong. In this sense, it is difficult for a moral relativist to hold that they have a right to exist (and in doing so, formulate their own set of moral values) in the first place. Just as they are unable to argue that slavery, the Holocaust, etc. are ultimately immoral, moral relativists are unable to argue that the discontinuation of their own lives at the hands of another individual (who adheres to a different set of values) would be ultimately immoral, either. They can claim that it is wrong in the sense of being against their moral code, but what is important here is the behaviour of the attacker; there is no reason why their attacker should be swayed by someone else’s personal or cultural beliefs.”

Would you agree upon this?

Secondly, Isn’t it hypocritcial for someone who argues subjective reality to contradict those who argue objective morality? You argue that morality can be anyway but object to those who feel it is one way. How can that be?

 

[Richard_Powers]

An interesting point I found:

“(subjective moralists)they have no right to claim that they should remain unharmed by other individuals who adhere to a subjectively determined or culturally-bound moral theory which does not regard causing harm to others, or at least moral relativists, as wrong. In this sense, it is difficult for a moral relativist to hold that they have a right to exist (and in doing so, formulate their own set of moral values) in the first place. Just as they are unable to argue that slavery, the Holocaust, etc. are ultimately immoral, moral relativists are unable to argue that the discontinuation of their own lives at the hands of another individual (who adheres to a different set of values) would be ultimately immoral, either. They can claim that it is wrong in the sense of being against their moral code, but what is important here is the behaviour of the attacker; there is no reason why their attacker should be swayed by someone else’s personal or cultural beliefs.”

Would you agree upon this?

Not entirely. My position is that there is no natural rights because what is a right without a remedy? Let’s take away rights that we have as a result of being part of a society. If there were just two people left in the world do either of the two have a natural right for the other to not kill him? What remedy exists if this “right” is violated?

As to having to say that I have no right to say that someone cannot kill me I would agree that I do not have any such natural “right” (I do have some legal rights which do have a remedy). But that does not mean that I have to just lay down and let that person kill me.

Again, I would ask you if you believe that any such natural right exists to please present evidence that it does. Further, is there a remedy that is attached to this right?

Secondly, Isn’t it hypocritcial for someone who argues subjective reality to contradict those who argue objective morality?

Are you suggesting that I argue for subjective reality? I do not. My argument is that non-agent based moral positions do not exist. Or that we do not have any evidence that they do exist.

You argue that morality can be anyway but object to those who feel it is one way. How can that be?

I do not know what you are asking here.

 

[Richard_Powers]

The question becomes, how do you prove that morality is subjective?

We can look at the moral positions that individuals take and see that they are almost all different. I see no evidence that there exists a non-agent based absolute moral position that actually exists. Without such a position actually existing there is no way to judge one individual’s moral system as better than anyone else’s. All the objections you raise above are example of the naturalistic fallacy or the is/ought fallacy.

For the last few pages I have answered every question and objection that you have put forward. I think it is time that you present evidence that a non-agent based objective and absolute moral position actually exists.

I think it is that you actually answer my very direct questions and not just continue to dodge them.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3165773]Not entirely. My position is that there is no natural rights because what is a right without a remedy? Let’s take away rights that we have as a result of being part of a society. If there were just two people left in the world do either of the two have a natural right for the other to not kill him? What remedy exists if this “right” is violated?

if you could rephrase this. I’m not sure you and I have the same working definition of natural rights.

As to having to say that I have no right to say that someone cannot kill me I would agree that I do not have any such natural “right” (I do have some legal rights which do have a remedy). But that does not mean that I have to just lay down and let that person kill me.

I will not dispute legal rights, we can agree that they are a given and something beyond the scope of this discussion. The issue at this particular point of the discussion is to ask whether or not you have any defense, other than legal, for someone taking your life. If not, the argument goes on to ask “if you have no right to exist, do you have a right to formulate any moral values?” It’s a valid point. If i understand the argument correctly, it is basically asking if you, by your own understanding, have no moral value upon your life and a moral right to live or anatural right to live, what right do you have then to have moral values or values in general?

Again, I would ask you if you believe that any such natural right exists to please present evidence that it does. Further, is there a remedy that is attached to this right?

If your ready for it we are going to dive into the realm of theology.

Are you suggesting that I argue for subjective reality?

Is the allowing or disallowing of killing and raping not part of reality?

I do not. My argument is that non-agent based moral positions do not exist. Or that we do not have any evidence that they do exist.

I’m guessing there might be something lost here with my understanding. You seem to dance back and forth over the line.

I do not know what you are asking here.

You argue for a subjective sense of morality but then argue against those who see morality as objective. If your moral understanding is one of subjectivity and thus nothing is really right or wrong, how can you argue against people who feel certain thing sare always wrong?

If i am not mistaken, those who argue against objective morality argue against objective truth as well. This proves and interesting point I will get to.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3165835]We can look at the moral positions that individuals take and see that they are almost all different.

I believe rape is wrong, you believe rape is wrong, most people believe rape is wrong.

I see no evidence that there exists a non-agent based absolute moral position that actually exists. Without such a position actually existing there is no way to judge one individual’s moral system as better than anyone else’s. All the objections you raise above are example of the naturalistic fallacy or the is/ought fallacy.

This in itself is a judgement that your moral system is better than any other simply because you do not have evidence based on the contrary.

For the last few pages I have answered every question and objection that you have put forward. I think it is time that you present evidence that a non-agent based objective and absolute moral position actually exists.

I think it is that you actually answer my very direct questions and not just continue to dodge them.

Welcome to the world of theology. I’t was never a dodge but rather I like to hammer out one front before I start another and there were and are many things about subjectivity that are contradictory.

 

[Richard_Powers]

if you could rephrase this. I’m not sure you and I have the same working definition of natural rights.

Another way to say it is I do not believe in natural rights. There is only the power to do things. If X has the power to kill Y he can. Rights do not come into at all.

I will not dispute legal rights, we can agree that they are a given and something beyond the scope of this discussion. The issue at this particular point of the discussion is to ask whether or not you have any defense, other than legal, for someone taking your life. If not, the argument goes on to ask “if you have no right to exist, do you have a right to formulate any moral values?” It’s a valid point. If i understand the argument correctly, it is basically asking if you, by your own understanding, have no moral value upon your life and a moral right to live or anatural right to live, what right do you have then to have moral values or values in general?

There is no need to look at rights. I have the power to take moral positions. As does anyone else.

If your ready for it we are going to dive into the realm of theology.

Let’s dive in.

Is the allowing or disallowing of killing and raping not part of reality? I’m guessing there might be something lost here with my understanding. You seem to dance back and forth over the line.

The subjective positions are a part of reality.

You argue for a subjective sense of morality but then argue against those who see morality as objective. If your moral understanding is one of subjectivity and thus nothing is really right or wrong, how can you argue against people who feel certain thing sare always wrong?

The question of whether morality is objective is not a moral question any more the question of what temperature water freezes at is a more question.

If i am not mistaken, those who argue against objective morality argue against objective truth as well. This proves and interesting point I will get to.

I am not one of those people.

 

[Richard_Powers]

I believe rape is wrong, you believe rape is wrong, most people believe rape is wrong.

And some other people disagree.

This in itself is a judgement that your moral system is better than any other simply because you do not have evidence based on the contrary.

I am not making a moral judgment on the other moral systems. I am making an objective judgment. Whether an objective and absolute morality exists is not a moral question. I do not claim that it is morally wrong to believe in falsity (or totally unsubstantiated claims) . In fact it is my position that a position is incoherent.

 

[Joyousguard]

Let me summarize thus far and see if I can condense everything so we can hammer out the rest of these details.

Objection:. One of the first objections I noted to subjective morality was this: As soon as you give someone the power to declare something is right or wrong, they will inevitably, by your own logic, call your belief wrong and thus you wrong. If people have the ability to choose whether rape is right or wrong as soon as they choose rape is wrong they have made a judment call against those who believe rape is right and thus prove by subjective morality that subjective morality is self defeating

Your Response: Your response to this point was essentially as follows: “The rapist can agree that rape is wrong from the rape person’s perspective without having to agree that it wrong from his perspective. Thus the rapist would have to agree that rape is wrong, but only from the raped person’s perspective (and probably a lot of other people as well) not his own.” Morality is a matter of individual perspective (my words)

1. Objection to your response: Moral or immoral is not a matter of the individual but automatically become part of the greater whole as soon as the action is committed. Rape is not an action soley of the indididual but immediately requires the presence of at least two individuals. The action in this case is rape. However, the understanding of that action can not be satisfied with merley refering to it as an individual affair for it is not by the very definiton. One can not try and dissasociate themselves with an action that requires multiple participants by claiming individuality
2. Objection to your response: In ancient times, they believed that thunder was the result of the gods being angry or something to this effect. We however know this not to be true and can explain it through logical and scientific terms and understanding. The perspective of these ancient individuals was wrong. Their view was incorrect. Hence, perspectives can be wrong and since a moral perspective or view is a perspective by it’s very nature (or moral perspective is a type of perspective and subject to its limitations and paradigms) it can in fact have the possibility of being wrong. If persepctives have the possiblity of being wrong then moral perspectives have the possibility of being wrong and thus can not be subjective in essence.

This two objections, for now, negate your response and brings us back to the original objection of subjective morality eing self defeating.

Further objections to subjective morality: Causing someone intentional harm is another component of an immoral action by the very definition. Harm and pain is something that human beings natural try to avoid. Immoral action is the intentional (it would be best to avoid vincible and invincible ignorance for now) harming of an individual. Rape is the intentional harming of an individual and thus considered immoral by the very understanding of what immoral action is comprised of. If pain is bad, then causing people pain is bad and thus something to be avoided. Q.E.D. casuing people pain would be considered wrong and immoral because it is something that humans natural avoid by the very fact that it is harmful and painful. Rape can damage not only the body but the mind as well.

“(subjective moralists)they have no right to claim that they should remain unharmed by other individuals who adhere to a subjectively determined or culturally-bound moral theory which does not regard causing harm to others, or at least moral relativists, as wrong. In this sense, it is difficult for a moral relativist to hold that they have a right to exist (and in doing so, formulate their own set of moral values) in the first place. Just as they are unable to argue that slavery, the Holocaust, etc. are ultimately immoral, moral relativists are unable to argue that the discontinuation of their own lives at the hands of another individual (who adheres to a different set of values) would be ultimately immoral, either. They can claim that it is wrong in the sense of being against their moral code, but what is important here is the behaviour of the attacker; there is no reason why their attacker should be swayed by someone else’s personal or cultural beliefs.”

You have no right to life and thus have no rights at all and ultimately can not defend your right to life in any manner other than physical force and the law?

 

[Joyousguard]

Now, in regardss to a theological argument are you going to dispute the existence of God, do you want to take it as a given or do you want to assume there is a God for arguments sake?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Now, in regardss to a theological argument are you going to dispute the existence of God, do you want to take it as a given or do you want to assume there is a God for arguments sake?

How are you defining God? A deistic God? A personal God? YHWH? the Trinity? Allah?

If you want to skip the step of establishing the existence of God we can. But we will probably have to come back to it.

 

[Richard_Powers]

1. Objection to your response: Moral or immoral is not a matter of the individual but automatically become part of the greater whole as soon as the action is committed. Rape is not an action soley of the indididual but immediately requires the presence of at least two individuals. The action in this case is rape. However, the understanding of that action can not be satisfied with merley refering to it as an individual affair for it is not by the very definiton. One can not try and dissasociate themselves with an action that requires multiple participants by claiming individuality

This objection is not so as to whether morality is objective or subjective, but it just says that an individual’s moral choices will have an effect beyond just themselves. It really goes to the further objection you listed - that the decision to rape will cause harm to another person and thus is immoral. But this is really just an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

1. Objection to your response: In ancient times, they believed that thunder was the result of the gods being angry or something to this effect. We however know this not to be true and can explain it through logical and scientific terms and understanding. The perspective of these ancient individuals was wrong. Their view was incorrect. Hence, perspectives can be wrong and since a moral perspective or view is a perspective by it’s very nature (or moral perspective is a type of perspective and subject to its limitations and paradigms) it can in fact have the possibility of being wrong. If persepctives have the possiblity of being wrong then moral perspectives have the possibility of being wrong and thus can not be subjective in essence.

As new information comes in the perspective changes. Just like if a woman loved her husband and then found out he was raping children and no longer loved it does not mean she did not really love him before. She loved him simply because she subjectively felt she did. Morality is similiar. An action is good from X’s perspective because X felt it was good at the time. The same action can be wrong from Y’s perspective at the same time. Then further information could come in and change the evaluation of both X and Y. Now we can look at from X1 and X2 perspective and Y1 and Y2 perspectives, but what we cannot do is judge which position is objectively and absolutely correct because there is no such standard as opposed to there be an objective answer as to why thunder makes noise (even if our understanding is incomplete).

Further objections to subjective morality: Causing someone intentional harm is another component of an immoral action by the very definition. Harm and pain is something that human beings natural try to avoid. Immoral action is the intentional (it would be best to avoid vincible and invincible ignorance for now) harming of an individual. Rape is the intentional harming of an individual and thus considered immoral by the very understanding of what immoral action is comprised of. If pain is bad, then causing people pain is bad and thus something to be avoided. Q.E.D. casuing people pain would be considered wrong and immoral because it is something that humans natural avoid by the very fact that it is harmful and painful. Rape can damage not only the body but the mind as well.

Naturalistic fallacy.

You have no right to life and thus have no rights at all and ultimately can not defend your right to life in any manner other than physical force and the law?

Pretty much. What right to life did the Jews who died in the Holocaust have? Does this right have any remedy?

 

[Joyousguard]

How are you defining God? A deistic God? A personal God? YHWH? the Trinity? Allah?

If you want to skip the step of establishing the existence of God we can. But we will probably have to come back to it.

Well I am Catholic so if you have any questions about God you can always look to the Summa or the CCC scborromeo.org/ccc.htm That way we can cover more ground faster than having to discuss each and every issue.

Suffice it to say this should be a good start for what Catholics believe:

239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/239.htm

For the existence of God, you may want to pursue these threads forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206725 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203455

I don’t want to really vere off to far and go into and existenc eof God argument because the moderators will disapprove. However, you can revive some of th eother threads and we can has that argument out seperately if the answers that are there do not answer all your questions.

 

[Richard_Powers]

I don’t want to really vere off to far and go into and existenc eof God argument because the moderators will disapprove. However, you can revive some of th eother threads and we can has that argument out seperately if the answers that are there do not answer all your questions.

Sounds good.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3169592]This objection is not so as to whether morality is objective or subjective, but it just says that an individual’s moral choices will have an effect beyond just themselves. It really goes to the further objection you listed - that the decision to rape will cause harm to another person and thus is immoral. But this is really just an example of the naturalistic fallacy

.What it does say is that a choice or an action that is moral or immoral can not be expalined away as simply being the right of the individual because the action itself is not soley of the individual. You would be able to get around this if the act in question only encompassed yourself as part of the essence. This would be difficult to come up with such an instance, but for expedience sake I will put that aside and simply say it is possible. However, it is not possible in the case of rape.

As new information comes in the perspective changes. Just like if a woman loved her husband and then found out he was raping children and no longer loved it does not mean she did not really love him before. She loved him simply because she subjectively felt she did. Morality is similiar. An action is good from X’s perspective because X felt it was good at the time. The same action can be wrong from Y’s perspective at the same time. Then further information could come in and change the evaluation of both X and Y. Now we can look at from X1 and X2 perspective and Y1 and Y2 perspectives,

This is very different than the example I gave and changed from an perspective of observation to and a perspective of feelings. Both are perspectives but the one in regards to feelings is an event or occurence that is ongoing (love) as opposed to something like a traffic accident. The accident happened only one way and as we all know people do not always see an accident in the same way. Or for that matter, those who believe the moon landings were not real. This is an occurence that happened in one way and not many different ways. Those who view (perspective) the moon landings as fake are wrong in their perspective. The list couold go on and one of people who have been wrong in theri perspective over a singular event rather than an event that was constantly flowing like love.

but what we cannot do is judge which position is objectively and absolutely correct because there is no such standard as opposed to there be an objective answer as to why thunder makes noise (even if our understanding is incomplete).

I believe we already agree to the stance that objective truth exists as does scientific truth. Not only can we explain thunder, but they can create and immitate thunder through the means of science. From an objective stance those who view thunder as a a product of the gods (meant in a Greek mythology sort of way) are indeed wrong in their perspectives and views because they can be scientifically and objectively proven wrong.

Naturalistic fallacy.

I’m going to work it into the theological argument, if I can remember to, it proves pertinent

Pretty much. What right to life did the Jews who died in the Holocaust have? Does this right have any remedy?

The jews had the same rights we do and the remedy would most likely be “THE REMEDY”.