Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[o_mlly]

A person whom you trust tell you that there is going to be a terrorist activity.

The future is unknown to everyone.

Or you see the terrorist killing people.

A person who sees another who is unjustly killing innocent persons may use sufficient force to stop the evil, even lethal force.

 

[STT]

God cannot wish evil. Anything God wishes must be good. It is God’s wish that we do only good.

If we can know objective morality then we can know what is good and what is evil. We are capable of choosing. We might choose to do good or we might choose to do evil.

God wills that we do good. How is there not room left for God’s will?

Because of two facts: 1) God by your definition is good, 2) we can understand morality, what is good and evil, based on reason. This means that what we realize as good is what God knows as good. Therefore there is no need for revelation.

 

[STT]

A person who sees another who is unjustly killing innocent persons may use sufficient force to stop the evil, even lethal force.

So you kill the terrorist?

 

[Zaccheus]

There is no room left for people’s opinion. 1+1=2. Any opinion that says that the sum is 3 is wrong.

Yes. And yet people make mistakes when dealing with math. That’s why we need instructors and experts. We make mistakes about morality. We need God’s guidance.

Because of two facts: 1) God by your definition is good, 2) we can understand morality, what is good and evil, based on reason. This means that what we realize as good is what God knows as good. Therefore there is no need for revelation.

You do not allow for human error and evil. What we think is good may not be good because we can be wrong.
For some parts of morality at least we need God’s revelation because of our own limits and flaws. Morality is objective but we can be mistaken.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’re comitting a category error here.

1+1 is quantifiable. Morality is not. Moreover, the guy that says it’s 3 is wrong, but is still free to have that opinion. I’ll just chide him for it.

Morality is not readily verifiable in the same way, but that doesn’t make it subjective and it’s special pleading to say so.

 

[STT]

Yes, we all do mistakes but we all agree with what is objective. The question is whether objective morality can be eventually known?

 

[STT]

You’re comitting a category error here.

1+1 is quantifiable. Morality is not. Moreover, the guy that says it’s 3 is wrong, but is still free to have that opinion. I’ll just chide him for it.

Morality is not readily verifiable in the same way, but that doesn’t make it subjective and it’s special pleading to say so.

I am aware of difference between mathematics and ethics.

 

[o_mlly]

So you kill the terrorist?

The issue is whether or not there are acts which are always evil. I believe you questioned the truth of that claim. I offered that the will-full killing of innocent human beings is always and everywhere by anyone an evil act.

How does killing a terrorist negate my claim?

 

[STT]

It doesn’t negate. I just don’t understand why you don’t answer my question: Do you kill the terrorist? Yes or no?

 

[o_mlly]

It doesn’t negate. I just don’t understand why you don’t answer my question: Do you kill the terrorist? Yes or no?

If killing the terrorist who is not innocent does not negate my claim that there are some acts which are inherently evil then you agree with my claim. ?

Do you have another example that you believe disproves my claim?

 

[STT]

If killing the terrorist who is not innocent does not negate my claim that there are some acts which are inherently evil then you agree with my claim. ?

I mean, you agree that a terrorist who is killing people is not an innocent. Would you kill him?

Do you have another example that you believe disproves my claim?

Life is full of examples. Lying to save the lives of individuals. Torturing a spy to get key information. etc.

 

[o_mlly]

Life is full of examples. Lying to save the lives of individual. Torturing a spy to get key information. etc.

No, lying is always evil. Torturing is always evil. The end does not justify an evil means.

 

[Wozza]

STT:

Life is full of examples. Lying to save the lives of individual. Torturing a spy to get key information. etc.

No, lying is always evil.

Gunman: Are your children hiding in the house?

 

[Wozza]

STT:

Vonsalza:

X and a derivative of X aren’t the same thing.

Non sequitur stands as I see it.

We have two options when it comes to morality: 1) Objective and 2) subjective. In first case all people have the same opinion about morality. In the second case people have different opinion about laws of morality. There is no other option. Which one do you pick?

A thing may be objectively true even if some people do not believe it.

If the correct answer to an equation is ‘15’ then it is still 15 even if several people insist it’s really 18 and some others say it’s 22.

Morality is objective. People’s opinions on moral issues can still be subjective.

Can something be objectively moral if EVERYONE has and does disagree with it? If the answer is no, then it is by definition not objective.

But if the answer is yes, then on what basis do we know it is moral?

.

 

[Vonsalza]

Objectivity doesn’t have anything to do with the possibility of differing opinions. It just makes differing opinions wrong as measured by the objective standard.

You know it’s moral because the standard says so.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Evil certainly exists as crime and sin go to show.

Evil isn’t a thing. To say it exists is like saying cold or nothing exists.

Only defines evil in relation to good

That’s all it can be defined by.

Evil can also be equated with malice

No. Malice is a part of sin. Sin is an abuse of the will to choose evil over the good, usually to cause evil so that good may come of it.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

Evil certainly exists as crime and sin go to show.

Evil isn’t a thing. To say it exists is like saying cold or nothing exists.

Cold is temperature, thus exists and can be measured in Joule as a unit of energy.

Existence of nothing would be the vacuum of space, or the empty set from mathematics, or the zero morpheme from linguistics. Things just don’t work without those entities.

 

[o_mlly]

Gunman: Are your children hiding in the house?

See the CCC #2488.

 

[adgloriam]

Only defines evil in relation to good

I would not hesitate to define evil as the amount of objective damages you suffer to your person and property. To avoid any temptation at moral relativism, evil should always be quantified by the amount of damages suffered.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Cold is temperature, thus exists and can be measured in Joule as a unit of energy.

From a website about temperature
Your brain detects this and calls it “ cold ”but in reality it is simply the profound lack of heat . Matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are aquiver with energy. … But nowhere on that temperature scale does “ cold ” exist, even at absolute zero. Absolute zero isn’t really cold , it is simply zero heat .

Existence of nothing would be the vacuum of space

The vacuum is space is not 0

Why is Permittivity of free space or vacuum not Zero 0?

Permittivity is the measure determining the electric field produced by charge in a particular medium. Now electric field, $E$ increases as ε (permittivity) decrease, and E decreases as ε increases...

physics.stackexchange.com