I agree the Jews had the same natural right to life that we do - none (or at least there is no evidence that such a right exists). If you believe they had a right to life, what did it get them? What does this right get anyone?
I do not explain in the language of rights at all. The individual has the power to make these decisions. There is no natural power that comes along and prevents Kim Jong-il from making his moral decisions.
Morals are not something that can be directly observed like thunder or a car accident or the moon landing. Morals are a subjective experience like taste or love.
The issue is not, whether a power exists to stop him from amking a moral decision but whether a moral decision can be attributed to a individual perspective given the fact that the essence of moral or immoral action is part of more than the individual. We can not accept the individual as part of the essence of the action with other persons and then disassociiate that same individual when it becomes difficult to defend their actionsfrom subjective reasoning, Th eperson is indeed an individual but their moral action is part of a greater whole and thus can not be removed from the moral or immoral act defacto. Soon as the act occurs it is no longer possible to remove the individual fromthe act and defend it with personal perspective.
The emphasis or issue was not upon “morals” but rather perspective. Perpsectives can be wrong and scientifically proven that they can indeed be wrong. Perspective in this case would be a general term and not necessarily specific or in reference to a “moral perspective” but an understanding that a perspective can indeed be wrong.
These two seem to be in conflict with the two I will quote below.
If the assumption in the book of Job is that God can basically do what he wants because he has the power to do so and that everyone should basically listen to Him because He says so. The argument you put forth would seem to be that might makes right in this instance and that we should go with the flow or get run over.
I see no conflict. IF YHWH exists he has the power to make moral decisions from his perspective. But I see nothing that would make his moral decisions absolute to ever other perspective. YHWH’s power would be similiar to Kim Jong-il (no offense intended).
I believe somwhere you said that you would have no need for a God like that. (paraphrased) The issue seemed to be that you felt that the Bible was saying that Job and us should believe in God because God said so or used His power to basically say do so or you will be sorry. But shouldn’t we follow what God says just like we follow what the state or the government says?
If the individual is not making the decision who is? Are you arguing against individual responsiblity?
Not sure what you are arguing here.
Perspectives can be wrong on objective matters not subjective matters. Subjective matters are entirely perspective based by definition.
If God really said told you to do something you would be left with the same choice as if the state or the government says something. Do it or face the consequence. But that does not mean that God or state or government can make pronouncements that define morality objectively and absolutely from every perspective.
The choice is the individuals but the act itself involves more than the individual. The immorality does not just lay in the choice but the action and the essence of that action. You may be able to excuse the choice to the individual perspective but the action is part of the greater whole and can not disassociated from the whole.
That soon as it becomes conveiniet we try to claim individual perspective in reagrds to an immoral action that is not individual at all (unless you consider the single occurence of rape as individual which is besides the point) but an immoral action or immoral occurrence that can not be brushed off as individual perspective when othe rpeople are involved in that event. It’s like going to movies with friends and then claiming you were by yourself.
“Entirely perspective based” on the fact that views and perspectives can be wrong and proven wrong. Perspectives are still perspectives no matter whether they are subjective or artistic or even a sports perspective. They all are from the same trunk but have different branches.
But there are many subjective positions based on objectively wrong material that are quite coherent and well thought out to a point. i think coherent might be the wrong explainaiton here.
First and foremost, the example is very simplistic obviously, but it is very coherent in its simplicity. Coherent means logically connected; consistent. “If Person Y believes blowing Person X’s brains out will help Person X sing better” is the premise or intent they may in fact be right because they have eliminated the better competition. Look at Mein Kompf, obviously Hitler was a nut job but he explains his logic for the elimination of the Jews in very concise logical means that is very coherent subjective argument based on something that was objectively wrong.
That is not the argument here. I’m arguing for objectivity through theology in my other posts but arguing for the possibility of perspective being wrong here. We are still left with the concept that all fruit of the perspective tree can in fact be wrong or right and many perspectives can in fact be proven one way or the other scientifically and objecively.
If Person Y shots Person X in the head that is not going to make Person X sing. Person Y is not shooting Person X to make herself (Person Y) sing better but is trying to make Person X sing better. The Premise is totally wrong. If Person X is shot is the head blowing Person X’s brains out Person X will be dead and dead people tend not to sing at all.
I have not read Mein Kompf so I cannot say if Hitler’s argument in it was based on objectively wrong premises. I do know some of his eugenics theories were objectively wrong, but I am not that familiar with Hitler’s ideas.
I do not see why it matters that the actions effect others. Most people consider the effect on others when they make moral decisions. But I still do not see an objective and absolute standard by which to judge the individual position. We both agreed that individual take moral positions, but now you seem to be arguing that individuals cannot really hold a moral position because their actions will effect others. Doesn’t this assume that a moral duty exists between people?
That was not the question I brought up. All I wanted to know is whether or not you recognize the similarities in the way you profess to live your life but criticize God for doing so.
This is a much more complicated example then you might think. I don’t believe it was the Cananites but another tribe. There is a thread on this somewhere that I came across.
Look at Mein Kompf. Hitler obviously had some issues with Jews before his rise to power and these issues influenced him greatly. When we look at many of the problems in this world today that have been associated with Jews such as the Israeli/Palestine situation which gives Hitler’s book and philosophy further creedance.
Soon as perpsectives are agreed to have a potential to be wrong does in fact mean they can be wrong across the board and not selectively argued to be right or wrong depending on the convienience of the situation. Just because subjective matter may be entirely perspective based by definition does not mean that perspectives can not be wrong. It does not mean that perspectives can not be right but merely that they have the potential to be wrong in all accords.
I think most of us try to avoid his theories and logic. It’s a lot like reading a book on how to play baseball the wrong way. Its not really worth the read and your time would be better spent on other things.
Its a question of the makeup of a moral or immoral act or action. Part of the very essence of an immoral or moral act and action is the presence of another party or several. We can not take away the very fact that people have the ability to choose (unless we kill them) but this is much different then the act and the action.
What I’m trying to show is that subjective morality is not the certain thing you believe it is and does have its shortcomings.
There is a major difference bewteen the choice, the act and the action. We can not effect the choices people make about certain things (death aside) and that particular aspect may be chalked up to the individual and their own sphere. However, ever occurence has more parts then just the choice we make or the though process we use. The act and the action by themselves involve more than the individual and can not be explained away as being part of the individual perspective of right and wrong because their very nature and essence denies the fact they are under the sole jurisdiction of the individual making it a much more complex affair then simple individual perspective.
You could make that claim, yes if I understand you correctly However, then we have to go out and prove it.
I am more criticizing the idea that God’s moral position can be applied universally.
Is it then your position that the children that were killed (let’s just agree it was not murder) were not harmed? Did they experience terror and pain? I take that since in your view God created the universe and all the people in it, it is fine for God to instruct for the killing of anyone and that killing would be moral? What about rape? Can God order a moral rape?
I already I do not know if coherent is the right term. I do not know if wrong is really either. I would agree that a subjective position can be flawed if it based on premises that are objectively wrong. I gave examples that showed this. You seem to keep implying that I am some sort of radical subjectivist, but I have already said that there are objective facts. But that does not mean that morality is not subjective. Again, look at taste or beauty. These same arguments can be used against standards of taste or beauty, but they just do show that either of those things must be objective and absolute.
It does not show “that immorality or morality goes beyond the scope of the individual perspective and thus can not be attributed to individual views or perspectives in all aspects.” You were closer in the first part of your answer. It shows that you have to establish that there actually exists a moral duty between people. Can you establish this?
okay.
This is a good point and unfourtunately I am not Scripture Theologian, if you could find the specific text I can see what the interpretation of this is from the Church fathers. They have had a long time to look at thise stuff and there are many things that we miss. Suffice it to say, the point about “sending the m back to God” is most likely hust the surface of the understanding here. I’ll try to find the thread where someone else brought up this instance as well.
If you’re playing Monopoly, and one of the players is free to make up their own rules of play for that game, what happens?
God’s rules are as they are because they are the “operating instructions” of the universe, not because infractions will be monitored and arbitrarily punished at the whim of some “big human meany in the sky”.
The consequences of sin are to learn the effects that sin produce. It’s not “might makes right”, but rather “if you do this then this is it’s effect” delivered in such a way as to be most wisely instructive to mankind as a whole.
The atheist sees only power verses power, because they have no conception of absolute truth.
I have made no claims about your person. I never really would have thought of something such as a radical subjectivist but merely a generic subjectivists. Such extremes have not really concerned me when they are of a similiar nature.
Lets say then that morality is subjective or more to the point, morality is subjective perspective. But the issue still remains that perspectives can and are wrong.
I’mnot arguing for objective reality here. This why I wanted to hash out this stuff before we moved on.
Remind me of this and I’ll post aw hole bunch of stuff that I have experienced or know of.
The “irrelevant objections” are still strangling the throat of sbjective morality and have not been relaesed yet.
It is still theological base and I believ we have already started. You seem to think that this should be a quick process rather than a gradual one. I hate to disappoint but this is going to take much longer because the subject is so intricate and many details must be hashed out before progressing to the next step.
That is not quite the objection. You response to the Socratic objection to subjective morality was that it was a matter of individual perspective. But that which is called moral or immoral or that which is called act and action are not individual at all but still part of a greater whole. If you want to claim the essence of the act and the action of rape can be dismissed as mere subjective perspective of the individual then you have to pull one heck of a magic trick to make the other party of the act and action of rape disappear from existence. Not even David Copperfield can pull that one off. There are certain paradigms that we can not escape. You can not have children with your wife and then wipe your wives being out the existence of that act and action of having children.