Rights are not self-evident

[Kamalayka]

I don’t have a complete definition of who God is, because God is completely beyond my comprehension, and will be, for eternity. (to quote Jesus: "Who God is in His essence, no creature, neither the mind of angels nor of man, will ever fathom.)

However, I do have a definition of God that is based on comparisons of creation:

God cannot “not” exist. He is “necessary.” He is the “Total Other.” There is the created, and then there is the Uncreated.​

God is

1. omnipotent (having unlimited authority/influence)
2. Omnipresent ( present everywhere at once)
3. omniscient (all-knowing).
4. God is all-holy, perfectly** just**, and complete Mercy.
   Now, how can God be perfectly just, and at the same time be merciful? In a way that my mind cannot comprehend, God Himself became a Man, in the form of His Son, and bore our sin. In reality, God’s greatest attribute is His love and mercy.
   An analogy would be like this:

A judge in a courtroom is perfectly just and sentences the criminal exactly what he deserves. Then, the judge himself bears the penalty for the crime, allowing the criminal to be free.

1. is completely simple, meaning that there are no “parts” or “components” to Him. He cannot be “separated.” The Word of God is God. God is Love.
2. God is complete in Himself. The three Persons of the Holy Trinity make a complete “community.” Each Person loves the other two Persons perfectly and completely. God does not need us for anything at all. We exist because His Love brought us into existence.

---

I just want to make clear the fact that God is eternally beyond comprehension.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then your comment appears useless and unfounded.

I am glad it is useless – call it a statement of aesthetic taste, if you like. You do not know if it is unfounded.

Aren’t you a professed Kantian? If not, my bad…

Nope. I think Kant has a lot of good things to say, but his moral philosophy fails to give any reason to obey moral laws – which is a rather significant failing in a moral philosophy.

In point of fact, I am more inclined toward Aristotle: we turn to virtue because only in virtue can we exercise the fullness of our human nature. If someone turns away from virtue, then they are less than fully human. Moral goodness is the vehicle that will bring us to our telos, happiness.

But what about those situations in life where vice is clearly advantageous? What is to keep us from pursuing destructive ends, in such straits? And how are we ever to attain virtue in the first place? How can a sinner ever become a saint? A teleological view can hold together in the light of God (who designs the telos), but without Him it is impossibly obscure.

I believe I said, “In a world where everyone likes midnight blue the most…”

When Kant says a priori, he means something that is true before any possible experience. It is not true that every possible rational being will, insofar as he is rational, like midnight blue. It is much more likely to be true that every possible rational being will, insofar as he is rational, consider himself an end and not a means.

Which means that he’s attempting to deduce the existence of something without experiencing it.

Not true. Morality need not exist, in Kant’s view – and it would not exist, if there were no rational beings. A priori reasoning considers what would be the case if X. But the antecedent of the conditional need not be satisfied.

I think your cushioning the argument by using these modifiers. What is a “subjective conclusion?” What is “objective significance?”

“Subjective conclusion” is a sloppy term. I meant that if it is subjectively true that X for any one Y (rational-being-as-such), then it is available for every Y (rational-being-as-such) to make the inference, and consider that the property X belongs to everyone meeting the description Y. You may be right that this is something less than fully objective – *it is obviously not a fully binding law, i.e. a law of physics *-- but it is considerably more than subjective. Kant said that each individual was his own lawgiver, but that each individual must (if he were rational) agree to the same laws.

Also, how do you define “rational being” and how do you tell which qualities are inherent in the nature of rationality and which aren’t (how do we test whether something is part of “rational-beings-as-such” or not?)?

This last question is perfectly bizarre, equivalent to asking how can you test whether a square has 180 degrees. A rational-being-as-such is a thinking thing, capable of meaningful analysis – but with no other characteristics assumed.

If this is what you mean, an intersubjective conclusion does not indicate the existence of an object.

That’s not at all what is meant by “objective”, in this context.

You can dress this up however you like, but Kant was grasping for straws and we all know it.

About 30% of the language we use to talk about philosophy was first explicated by Kant. If you would like to think so dismissively of a wise (although imperfect) man, that’s your prerogative. I wouldn’t recommend it, though.

 

[Oreoracle]

I just want to make clear the fact that God is eternally beyond comprehension.

…And that statement alone puts you out of sight and out of mind, my friend. Your opinion can hardly be respected if even you doubt that you’re typing anything more than speculation. It’s like saying, “Neither of us are sufficiently educated on this topic, but here’s my opinion and the reasons you should trust me despite my confessed ignorance.”

 

[Oreoracle]

I am glad it is useless – call it a statement of aesthetic taste, if you like. You do not know if it is unfounded.

Have it your way, but no foundation was offered.

Nope. I think Kant has a lot of good things to say, but his moral philosophy fails to give any reason to obey moral laws – which is a rather significant failing in a moral philosophy.

He thought that his ethical system was based entirely on rationality (whatever that is–the meaning of the term gets fuzzier the longer I’m in CAF…no pun intended), so the appeal of his system was its “rational” basis. Just because you don’t like the flavor of a food doesn’t mean the food has no flavor. Similarly, you cannot dismiss the meaning some find in the philosophy simply because you aren’t as enthralled by it.

n point of fact, I am more inclined toward Aristotle: we turn to virtue because only in virtue can we exercise the fullness of our human nature. If someone turns away from virtue, then they are less than fully human.

Ah, but we all think like that, don’t we? The cynics were content with lounging around on sandy beaches, having sex in the streets of Greece, and eating raw scraps of meat in the local marketplace. Did they live their lives “to the fullest?” It’s a matter of opinion, if I’ve ever seen one.

Moral goodness is the vehicle that will bring us to our telos, happiness.

Out of curiosity, what is “happiness?”

A teleological view can hold together in the light of God (who designs the telos), but without Him it is impossibly obscure.

Again, failing to enjoy the flavors of my ice cream doesn’t make it flavorless. I don’t taste your ice cream, either. (This metaphor’s starting to sound a bit disturbing, now that I think of it…)

When Kant says a priori, he means something that is true before any possible experience. It is not true that every possible rational being will, insofar as he is rational, like midnight blue. It is much more likely to be true that every possible rational being will, insofar as he is rational, consider himself an end and not a means.

Right, but your rebuttal depends on likelihoods and not absolutes–Kant wouldn’t be pleased.

Not true. Morality need not exist, in Kant’s view – and it would not exist, if there were no rational beings.

It seems that we (or at least Kant and I) agree on something: the existence of morality is dependent upon the existence of subjects…the very condition of being subjective. Can we agree that morality is subjective in this sense?

You may be right that this is something less than fully objective – *it is obviously not a fully binding law, i.e. a law of physics *-- but it is considerably more than subjective.

The term you’re looking for is “intersubjective,” which means that it is experienced by multiple subjects. You’re right that the unanimity of such statements as “I should not kill humans” and “Earth exists” bear a striking resemblance. But one is true regardless of the existence of subjects, no? The other is held as true by the subjects who’ve formulated it.

This last question is perfectly bizarre, equivalent to asking how can you test whether a square has 180 degrees. A rational-being-as-such is a thinking thing, capable of meaningful analysis – but with no other characteristics assumed.

Bizarre, yes, but also necessary. What is “meaningful analysis?” I’m not playing games here; I really don’t know what exactly you mean.

That’s not at all what is meant by “objective”, in this context.

Then we may have nothing to argue about. What is meant by “objective?” You know that I mean it as “independent of perception.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I believe you are fine with lying about this because your assertion is absurd.

your opinion on the absurdity of my statement doesnt equate to a lie.

You say that, if not for God, we would not act morally.

yup.

Do you mean that if we don’t believe in God we will act immorally?

thats right, not believing in G-d is inherently immoral in itself.

Are you saying that if God doesn’t exist then morality doesn’t exist?

What do you mean?

i mean that any subjective form of morality is in essence no morality. you may set what you think is right and wrong, but it is no more than youre subjective opinion. only G-ds subjective morality, which is objective to us, means anything, in that G-d as Creator would be the only entity with the right to set moral rules for His creation. much like you have a right to tell your children what rules will be followed in your house. (when you have some, i mean that in general)

I’m sorry, but as an atheist, I don’t feel any sort of compulsion to murder anyone.

why do you think murder is immoral apart from G-ds prohibition of it?

We don’t need a belief in God to act morally, no matter what ethical system you choose to postulate. That is, unless you’re inventing a new one here.

not at all, im saying that you cant behave morally apart from G-d because there is no such thing as morality apart from G-d, its all just so much opinion.

I haven’t been dodging, I just don’t see any reason to answer it. It’s personal, and has nothing to do with philosophy. But if you wish, I’ll send you a private message listing my sins and perhaps some of my would-be sins as well.

ok

 

[Kamalayka]

…And that statement alone puts you out of sight and out of mind, my friend. Your opinion can hardly be respected if even you doubt that you’re typing anything more than speculation. It’s like saying, “Neither of us are sufficiently educated on this topic, but here’s my opinion and the reasons you should trust me despite my confessed ignorance.”

…In a similar manner an atheist claims there is no “first cause” of the universe.

We as Christians believe we can know God through Revelation and through reason.

By reason I could mean this:

I see that the universe exists. Since I am aware of cause and effect, and I see the universe’s existence as an effect, it must have had a cause.
(I suppose this is where the deist stops.)

Since I am a theist and I believe in a personal God who has revealed Himself in a personal, human way, I can meditate on this (revelation) as well and come to conclusions.

 

[wanstronian]

Tell you what… with that statement, I am not even going to bother reading the rest of what you typed.

Just pointing out the facts.

I suspect you’ll claim this as another argument won…

 

[Oreoracle]

…In a similar manner an atheist claims there is no “first cause” of the universe.

Usually that’s not the case. We just don’t believe that the first cause was a sentient, sapient being.

Since I am a theist and I believe in a personal God who has revealed Himself in a personal, human way, I can meditate on this (revelation) as well and come to conclusions.

But that’s just it: you’ve assumed the first cause is a personal god. Try again.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

He thought that his ethical system was based entirely on rationality (whatever that is–the meaning of the term gets fuzzier the longer I’m in CAF…no pun intended), so the appeal of his system was its “rational” basis. Just because you don’t like the flavor of a food doesn’t mean the food has no flavor. Similarly, you cannot dismiss the meaning some find in the philosophy simply because you aren’t as enthralled by it.

Huh?

Ah, but we all think like that, don’t we? The cynics were content with lounging around on sandy beaches, having sex in the streets of Greece, and eating raw scraps of meat in the local marketplace. Did they live their lives “to the fullest?” It’s a matter of opinion, if I’ve ever seen one.

Whether they lived their lives to the fullest is largely a matter of whether they were still capable of sensitivity (to eudaimonia) after doing all these things. Pleasure seems to dull the soul to pleasure; this is why happiness is not found in “the way of all flesh”. The good life is not a function of overt pleasures, nor is it a function of our own personal opinions about what the good life is. (How’s that for objective?)

Out of curiosity, what is “happiness?”

From wikipedia:

In the Nicomachean Ethics, (1095a15-22) Aristotle says that eudaimonia means ’doing and living well’. It is significant that synonyms for eudaimonia are living well and doing well. On the standard English translation, this would be to say that ‘happiness is doing well and living well’. However, it is important to notice that ‘happiness’ does not entirely capture the meaning of the Greek word here. One important difference is that happiness often connotes being or tending to be in a certain pleasant state of consciousness. For example, when we say of someone, that “he is a very happy man,” we usually mean that he seems subjectively contented with the way things are going in his life. We mean to imply that he feels good about the way things are going for him. In contrast, eudaimonia is a more encompassing notion than happiness since events that do not contribute to one’s experience of happiness may affect one’s eudaimonia.

There is no equivalent English word.

By the way, if you accuse me of being a consequentialist, I will completely admit that I am – in a strict sense. Anyone who does not consider the consequences of actions, broadly construed, in their moral philosophy is not peddling ethics, but rather dogma.

Again, failing to enjoy the flavors of my ice cream doesn’t make it flavorless.

I fail to see your point.

Right, but your rebuttal depends on likelihoods and not absolutes–Kant wouldn’t be pleased.

True enough. Unlike Kant, I do not assume that all “rational” people will agree with my argument.

It seems that we (or at least Kant and I) agree on something: the existence of morality is dependent upon the existence of subjects…the very condition of being subjective. Can we agree that morality is subjective in this sense?

Do you mean “If there were no subject, there would be no morality”? I would agree with that, although it seems to depend (to me, at least) upon the nonexistence of a necessary entity.

The term you’re looking for is “intersubjective,” which means that it is experienced by multiple subjects. You’re right that the unanimity of such statements as “I should not kill humans” and “Earth exists” bear a striking resemblance. But one is true regardless of the existence of subjects, no? The other is held as true by the subjects who’ve formulated it.

If Earth did not exist, then the statement “Earth exists” would be false. If “I” did not exist, then the statement “I should not kill humans” would be false. The nonexistence of the subject falsifies the proposition. I fail to see a significant difference.

Bizarre, yes, but also necessary. What is “meaningful analysis?” I’m not playing games here; I really don’t know what exactly you mean.

When we have the concept “rational being”, we can discover certain ideas contained within this larger concept. For example, the concept of “freedom” can be analyzed as “lack of restraint” or as “opportunity for multiple actions”. Each of these are equally valid, contained within the concept of freedom itself. For Kant, when you talk about a “rational being”, you are talking about a being that treats itself as an end. He thinks that it is perfectly obvious that every rational being would do so (although it is not perfectly obvious that every human being is rational).

As to your questions about rationality, Oreo, this is exactly where this subjective/objective distinction comes in. As you know, different people will draw the line of rationality at different places. But it does not follow that there is no line at which rationality can be drawn. “A capacity to make decisions conform to one’s mental judgments, as opposed to one’s animal needs.” That’s my unofficial definition.

Then we may have nothing to argue about. What is meant by “objective?” You know that I mean it as “independent of perception.”

You referenced “the existence of an object”. “Object” is such a vague word, however. One may make objective statements without the ability to point to an object (physical or teleological). For example, “The laws of thermodynamics are true.”

By objective, I mean that the truth value of a true statement does not change when the subject changes.

 

[Oreoracle]

your opinion on the absurdity of my statement doesnt equate to a lie.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

thats right, not believing in G-d is inherently immoral in itself.

Does this lack of belief prevent every action of the non-believer’s from being moral? If not, we can be moral without belief in God (not “perfectly moral,” though, if that’s what you’re getting at).

i mean that any subjective form of morality is in essence no morality. you may set what you think is right and wrong, but it is no more than youre subjective opinion.

Stop with this “subjective opinion” nonsense. All opinions are subjective in that they take place in subjects. God would be a subject as much as anyone else.

only G-ds subjective morality, which is objective to us, means anything

A subjective morality is a subjective morality. There is no “objective to us.” That’s like saying that the White House exists as an object…to us. No, the White House exists regardless of our perception of it, which is why it is an object. That is what is meant by “objective.”

in that G-d as Creator would be the only entity with the right to set moral rules for His creation.

The belief that God has the right to do whatever he wants to us because he created us is just your opinion.

much like you have a right to tell your children what rules will be followed in your house.

Yeah, so when they disobey me, I can throw them in the oven! “Bake for your disobedience!” Might doesn’t make right, in my opinion.

why do you think murder is immoral apart from G-ds prohibition of it?

The short answer is that it causes suffering (public anxiety, in this case) and negates the happiness that could have been experienced during the victim’s life. We all pursue happiness, and it is wrong to cut one’s experiences short for no reason (killing a mass-murderer might be acceptable, given this standard of utility).

 

[James_S_Saint]

Usually that’s not the case. We just don’t believe that the first cause was a sentient, sapient being.

So you DO believe in God. You just disagree on a matter of God’s nature? You just don’t believe God is sentient and sapient?

I don’t think that qualifies you as an Atheist… or even an Agnostic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I call 'em as I see 'em.

you seem to call them as you want them to be.

Does this lack of belief prevent every action of the non-believer’s from being moral? If not, we can be moral without belief in God (not “perfectly moral,” though, if that’s what you’re getting at).

does it matter if a murderer helps little old ladies across the street, or voluteers at a homeless shelter? no. it doesnt he is still a killer. that moral perfection is after all the point of sainthood, the call to be holy. no one can meet it, but it is the goal.

Stop with this “subjective opinion” nonsense. All opinions are subjective in that they take place in subjects. God would be a subject as much as anyone else.

why would G-d be as “subject” as anyone else? it would seem that as the maximal state of being, G-d is the one non-contingent object that can provide a source of “objective morals”.

if you dont like that then, how about this

G-d owns the whole ball of wax as the Creator, much as the government has the right to enact laws, G-d has that right to the ultimate degree. or no one has that right and its a free for all.

A subjective morality is a subjective morality. There is no “objective to us.” That’s like saying that the White House exists as an object…to us. No, the White House exists regardless of our perception of it, which is why it is an object. That is what is meant by “objective.”

G-d exists regardless of our percetion of Him as well.

The belief that God has the right to do whatever he wants to us because he created us is just your opinion.

if not then its a free for all. but i doubt your own parents have given you no rules, which you surely acknowledge as their right. so why then does G-d not have that right as the literal Creator?

Yeah, so when they disobey me, I can throw them in the oven! “Bake for your disobedience!” Might doesn’t make right, in my opinion.

one human cant own another, the same does not hold true for G-d who owns your very substance, but no one said might makes right, rather He has property rights over the entire universe. big difference there.

The short answer is that it causes suffering (public anxiety, in this case) and negates the happiness that could have been experienced during the victim’s life. We all pursue happiness, and it is wrong to cut one’s experiences short for no reason (killing a mass-murderer might be acceptable, given this standard of utility).

why is any of that immoral? why is wrong to cut a life short? why is suffering wrong? why is it wrong to cut happiness short? because of utility?

it seems that all you can offer are the same subjective opinions that you claim G-d is making. you are in the exact same boat when it comes to the subjectivity of the morals you wish to operate under. if morals are subjective, then they are nothing more than a pile of subjective opinions.

now do you see why all these arguments about morals are pointless? if there is a G-d then you really have no choice, if there is not a G-d, then there are no morals, and the strongest of us, have no reason not to do as we please.

 

[Kamalayka]

But that’s just it: you’ve assumed the first cause is a personal god. Try again.

I went from atheistic Jew to Christian after discovering the historicity of the New Testament.

I see the Jesus of The New Testament as being real, and now see the New Testament as being historically reliable. I do believe Jesus really healed the deaf, blind, lame, raise people from dead.

What I am trying to say is this:

If I see a man do these things, I am going to believe what he says. I guess it is indirect evidence of God at best.​

I am sure you question the New Testament’s reliability, and I did too, but I mean, come on, Paul became a Christian in 36 AD, roughly three years after Christ. He knew what the church taught since the beginning. He knew the apostles personally, as well as other disciples of Jesus.
He talks about the 502 people who say Christ after His Resurrection, (even mentioning most were still alive.)

Skeptics may say, “Well, his writings must have evolved over time.”

Not really. Here’s why:
When he wrote his letters, they would circulate throughout the church within a short amount of time (several years), making it impossible to “edit” them later on, as some skeptics claim, unless you want to believe that some guy went to Spain, Egypt, Italy, Greece, Jerusalem, etc. and conveniently “changed” them
And if they did “evolve,” wouldn’t different regions have different versions? Isolated first century churches in Ethiopia and India had the exact same books as in the rest of the church.)

 

[Oreoracle]

Huh?

I’m saying that you may believe Kantianism offers no reason to be moral but that doesn’t mean it appears that way to everyone.

Whether they lived their lives to the fullest is largely a matter of whether they were still capable of sensitivity (to eudaimonia) after doing all these things. Pleasure seems to dull the soul to pleasure; this is why happiness is not found in “the way of all flesh”. The good life is not a function of overt pleasures, nor is it a function of our own personal opinions about what the good life is. (How’s that for objective?)

I would disagree here. Some people get along just fine living off of those “overt pleasures.” As with Kantianism, you’re disregarding the meaning some people find in their lives simply because you’re unable to see it or experience it.

Possibly the most serious error of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is the belief that humans are similar enough that they should be held to the same standards, but that they’re different enough to deserve either Heaven or Hell. But as you know, we’re not the same. Some people prefer different lifestyles, and who are you to say that they don’t enjoy those lifestyles?

By the way, if you accuse me of being a consequentialist, I will completely admit that I am – in a strict sense. Anyone who does not consider the consequences of actions, broadly construed, in their moral philosophy is not peddling ethics, but rather dogma.

Accuse you? I applaud you! I’m sure you won’t agree with this entirely, but if the goal of ethical deliberation is to derive disciplines that can be used to improve the experiences of the subjects in this world, then we must look at consequences to achieve this feat. After all, if we disregard consequences, how do we even know what an “improvement” is?

And for those who say that consequences don’t matter and that only pleasing God matters, I have one thing to say: pleasing God is, in a strict sense, still a consequence. But I don’t believe people truly think in these terms anyway.

I fail to see your point.

Again, I only mean that you can’t dismiss something as being worthless, unreasonable, etc., simply because you don’t see the worth or reason involved. Ultimately, the most you can really say about any ethical philosophy’s axiom is “I don’t like it.” I don’t like your “conform to God” axiom and you don’t like the greatest happiness principle. The most we can do is try to persuade each other by pouring out our sentiments over the internet (which isn’t very effective ) or by using outrageous examples of what would happen if our respective philosophies were followed.

True enough. Unlike Kant, I do not assume that all “rational” people will agree with my argument.

I’m glad that you aren’t as presumptuous as Kant on this matter. Now if only we could get rid of the nasty assumption that, if the human race were exposed to God, everyone would wish to conform to his nature. Is that assumption not at least as large as Kant’s?

Do you mean “If there were no subject, there would be no morality”?

Yes, that is what I mean. Thus, morality doesn’t exist as an object in the same way that my chair exists as an object. Now this discussion is mostly dependent on what you mean by “objective,” since you aren’t using the usual definition.

If Earth did not exist, then the statement “Earth exists” would be false. If “I” did not exist, then the statement “I should not kill humans” would be false. The nonexistence of the subject falsifies the proposition. I fail to see a significant difference.

This is true, but there are other differences. (As an aside, the Earth is not a subject in this sense. A subject is taken to be an entity that has a degree of self-awareness.)

For example, if humans (and yourself) and other somewhat sapient animals still existed, but all have lost their consciousness/awareness (thus, they are no longer sapient or sentient), would morality still exist? No subjectivity=no ethics.

When we have the concept “rational being”, we can discover certain ideas contained within this larger concept. For example, the concept of “freedom” can be analyzed as “lack of restraint” or as “opportunity for multiple actions”. Each of these are equally valid, contained within the concept of freedom itself. For Kant, when you talk about a “rational being”, you are talking about a being that treats itself as an end. He thinks that it is perfectly obvious that every rational being would do so (although it is not perfectly obvious that every human being is rational).

Out of curiosity, what exactly does it mean to treat yourself as an end? I’ve read some of Kant, and he never seems to elaborate on this. For instance, Christians might say that upholding the most selfish lifestyle imaginable still wouldn’t be treating yourself as an end, because you’re abusing your soul. People have different ideas on this matter, it seems.

As to your questions about rationality, Oreo, this is exactly where this subjective/objective distinction comes in. As you know, different people will draw the line of rationality at different places. But it does not follow that there is no line at which rationality can be drawn. “A capacity to make decisions conform to one’s mental judgments, as opposed to one’s animal needs.” That’s my unofficial definition.

That’s a bit of a rough definition (because it is sometimes most rational to act as an animal). Basically your definition amounts to “the capacity to think.” Am I right?

By objective, I mean that the truth value of a true statement does not change when the subject changes.

How do we judge the truth value of an ethic?

 

[Oreoracle]

So you DO believe in God. You just disagree on a matter of God’s nature? You just don’t believe God is sentient and sapient?

I don’t think that qualifies you as an Atheist… or even an Agnostic.

Don’t be such a narcissist…your definition of “God” is different than nearly everyone else’s. You’re thinking only in your own terms.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Don’t be such a narcissist…your definition of “God” is different than nearly everyone else’s. You’re thinking only in your own terms.

The Atheist’s final escape; “Believe only in what makes them wrong.”

 

[Oreoracle]

does it matter if a murderer helps little old ladies across the street, or voluteers at a homeless shelter? no. it doesnt he is still a killer. that moral perfection is after all the point of sainthood, the call to be holy. no one can meet it, but it is the goal.

This is just plain silly. You’re equating not believing in God with murdering someone. Even for a Catholic, that’s low. :tsktsk:

why would G-d be as “subject” as anyone else?

A “subject” in this sense is a being with awareness/consciousness.

G-d owns the whole ball of wax as the Creator, much as the government has the right to enact laws, G-d has that right to the ultimate degree. or no one has that right and its a free for all.

I can’t help but think that, sometimes, it would be better to have a free-for-all. Here, you’re essentially saying that mankind needs a dictator of some sort (don’t call that loaded language, that’s what a dictator is) so as to maintain order. But let’s think back to those “communists” you remember so well. They established order, but at what cost? Napoleon Bonaparte also established order, but at what cost? Sometimes chaos is preferable to order.

And the government is divided into three branches so that most ridiculous laws that would be detrimental to our country won’t be passed. Your god is a dictator who has no one to moderate the usage of his power. And even the US government, with its checks and balances, isn’t unanimously supported in regard to its “right” to pass laws (see anarchists). For these reasons, your comparison of God to the government fails.

G-d exists regardless of our percetion of Him as well.

You don’t understand (partially because you refuse to understand). We were talking about morals, not God. God’s morals don’t exist outside of perception, which is to say that they don’t exist in the same way that, say, my chair exists. They would only be God’s opinions.

if not then its a free for all.

I’ve addressed this above. Sometimes chaos is preferable to…how do I say this? Oh yeah: “being considered the property of God and living an orderly existence.”

Hey Pete, could you remind me again what someone’s called when they’re the property of another? It’s on the tip of my tongue…

but i doubt your own parents have given you no rules, which you surely acknowledge as their right. so why then does G-d not have that right as the literal Creator?

I believe that my parents should be able to establish rules in order to make our time together more fruitful. This is conditional, of course; the condition being that the rules must hold some utility value. If the rules are useless, I believe they’re valueless. It doesn’t matter to me who makes the rule. In short, the rules should stand on their own merit (that is, the consequences they’ll produce when followed).

one human cant own another, the same does not hold true for G-d who owns your very substance, but no one said might makes right, rather He has property rights over the entire universe. big difference there.

What’s someone called when they’re considered the property of another?

why is any of that immoral? why is wrong to cut a life short? why is suffering wrong? why is it wrong to cut happiness short? because of utility?

The badness of pain is regarded as axiomatic.

it seems that all you can offer are the same subjective opinions that you claim G-d is making. you are in the exact same boat when it comes to the subjectivity of the morals you wish to operate under. if morals are subjective, then they are nothing more than a pile of subjective opinions.

By Jove, I think he’s got it!

 

[Oreoracle]

The Atheist’s final escape; “Believe only in what makes them wrong.”

How old are you? The way I see it, you’re either a prejudiced old man or a snotty child. Really, there’s not much of a difference between the two.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How old are you? The way I see it, you’re either a prejudiced old man or a snotty child. Really, there’s not much of a difference between the two.

Yet another highly rational reply.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m saying that you may believe Kantianism offers no reason to be moral but that doesn’t mean it appears that way to everyone.

Well, yes. But the key is that: if you assume Kantian morality to be true, it still doesn’t convince you to follow it. If you assume Christian morality to be true, you have sufficient incentive to follow it.

I would disagree here. Some people get along just fine living off of those “overt pleasures.” As with Kantianism, you’re disregarding the meaning some people find in their lives simply because you’re unable to see it or experience it.

You are saying, then, that the good life is a function of people’s opinion of what the good life is? Are there **no **character traits that must be necessary for a person to experience a fulfilling life? Can a coward be fully and lastingly happy? What about a spendthrift? What about a drug addict?

Possibly the most serious error of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is the belief that humans are similar enough that they should be held to the same standards, but that they’re different enough to deserve either Heaven or Hell. But as you know, we’re not the same. Some people prefer different lifestyles, and who are you to say that they don’t enjoy those lifestyles?

If they are temperate and wise, courageous and intelligent, talented and socially connected, then I have no doubt that they *do *enjoy their lifestyles. There is nothing about being non-Christian that precludes happiness. Indeed, the world is such that any person, no matter how immersed in an non-Christian philosophy, will find that virtue is advantageous to them. And if they find that virtue is advantageous, and cultivate virtue, then they will become more and more humble. And this humility will lead them, given the opportunity, to listen carefully to the Christian story, without any preconceptions.

Accuse you? I applaud you! I’m sure you won’t agree with this entirely, but if the goal of ethical deliberation is to derive disciplines that can be used to improve the experiences of the subjects in this world, then we must look at consequences to achieve this feat. After all, if we disregard consequences, how do we even know what an “improvement” is?

The problem is that utilitarianism takes a very narrow view of “consequences”. In my mind, consequences must be evaluated in the light of revelation, but it is very hard to ask a non-Christian to agree with me on that.

And for those who say that consequences don’t matter and that only pleasing God matters, I have one thing to say: pleasing God is, in a strict sense, still a consequence. But I don’t believe people truly think in these terms anyway.

These people are talking about motivation, not telos. The *motive *of Christian morality is to conform to the image of God (to be what we were made to be). The *end *of Christian morality is happiness.

Again, I only mean that you can’t dismiss something as being worthless, unreasonable, etc., simply because you don’t see the worth or reason involved. Ultimately, the most you can really say about any ethical philosophy’s axiom is “I don’t like it.” I don’t like your “conform to God” axiom and you don’t like the greatest happiness principle. The most we can do is try to persuade each other by pouring out our sentiments over the internet (which isn’t very effective ) or by using outrageous examples of what would happen if our respective philosophies were followed.

What outrageous things would happen if my philosophy was followed? Men would become like gods?

I’m glad that you aren’t as presumptuous as Kant on this matter. Now if only we could get rid of the nasty assumption that, if the human race were exposed to God, everyone would wish to conform to his nature. Is that assumption not at least as large as Kant’s?

**If God created the universe, why would He create it such that (if we knew the truth) we wouldn’t wish to conform to His nature? This is a very important question, and I wonder if you have an answer.

Yes, that is what I mean. Thus, morality doesn’t exist as an object in the same way that my chair exists as an object. Now this discussion is mostly dependent on what you mean by “objective,” since you aren’t using the usual definition.

Let’s use this:

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. **Stanford Encl. of Philosophy **

For example, if humans (and yourself) and other somewhat sapient animals still existed, but all have lost their consciousness/awareness (thus, they are no longer sapient or sentient), would morality still exist? No subjectivity=no ethics.

In your scenario, out of curiosity, do you do away with God (a *necessary *being) too? That is one powerful hypothetical! If God is bound by morality, then morality always remains objective.

Out of curiosity, what exactly does it mean to treat yourself as an end? I’ve read some of Kant, and he never seems to elaborate on this. For instance, Christians might say that upholding the most selfish lifestyle imaginable still wouldn’t be treating yourself as an end, because you’re abusing your soul. People have different ideas on this matter, it seems.

Treating yourself as an end is (in my understanding) purely a contrast to treating oneself as a means to an end. The selfish person uses his body merely as a means to pleasure.

That’s a bit of a rough definition (because it is sometimes most rational to act as an animal). Basically your definition amounts to “the capacity to think.” Am I right?

Sometimes acting like an animal conforms to one’s mental judgments.

How do we judge the truth value of an ethic?

Be like Jesus. That is the only solution an honest Christian can recommend.