Without God, all is permitted

[Bradski]

Apart from God I could not know for sure. The only way to know is to know God and his way. it is a journey of transformation to become more like him. This is more than just keeping the commandments of God but also transforming one’s heart to one of love and service. Even if i did not myself know the answer to every question it still would not change the fact that only with God can we have objective moral values and duties. And he has let us know in many case what is good and evil. And he has written his law on our conscience.

Telling me that you believe that there are objective laws and then saying tht you do not know what they are is exactly the same as not having any in the first place.

I could claim something to be an objective moral law with which you disagreed and you couldn’t tell me if I was right or not.

Ah, except that it might be written on your conscience. In which case you would know.

So I’m still confused. Would you know? In which case we can defer to you in matters of morality. Or do you not? In which case we are back to stage 1: objective laws which cannot be known.

 

[dshix]

In other words, you don’t know if rape might turn out to be a good thing. Except of course that you believe that nothing evil can be done so that good may come if it.

Something of a quandary there. How do you solve it?

I said nothing about the rape being a good thing, or intentionally doing evil that good may come of it. My example was a device to show why God might sometimes permit evil, and I am well aware that the device is imperfect. Yet, it may still be of help to the person to whom it was directed.

 

[Bradski]

I said nothing about the rape being a good thing, or intentionally doing evil that good may come of it. My example was a device to show why God might sometimes permit evil, and I am well aware that the device is imperfect. Yet, it may still be of help to the person to whom it was directed.

You specifically said that things could be better or worse because of an evil act. And that we cannot know which it is ourselves. So it could be good as far as God knows. And you gave an example: good people now in existence because of that evil.

Your whole argument is that God may permit evil because good may come of it. That is against Catholic teaching.

 

[Vonsalza]

You specifically said that things could be better or worse because of an evil act. And that we cannot know which it is ourselves. So it could be good as far as God knows. And you gave an example: good people now in existence because of that evil.

Your whole argument is that God may permit evil because good may come of it. That is against Catholic teaching.

You 100% sure about that?

Genesis 50:20 You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.

 

[dshix]

Your whole argument is that God may permit evil because good may come of it. That is against Catholic teaching.

No, it’s not against Catholic teaching. Odd for you, a non-Catholic, to make an assertion about Catholic doctrine.

Can you substantiate your claim that God is breaking His own Divine Law by permitting evil to exist?

 

[Bradski]

You 100% sure about that?

The catechism says:

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Now unless dshix wants to argue that rape is not a disorder of the will, I would suggest that it is an evil act. And he argues, quite specifically, that good may come of it a(who are we to know God’s will).

He is arguing that God permits evil acts (it is His will) because good may come of it.

Maybe he didn’t mean to say that. Maybe he didn’t mean that it might be better not to stop a rape:

We cannot judge whether it is better or worse for something to be stopped or not…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is not nonsense. Let’s take an example:

Let’s say that your great-great-great-great grandfather raped your great-great-great-great grandmother. That resulted in a child, and that child is your ancestor.

If it weren’t for that act of evil, you wouldn’t exist. And several hundred other people who may be good or may be bad, wouldn’t exist.

And the answer to this is: “who cares”?

The point is that God can see the whole picture, and we cannot. We cannot judge whether it is better or worse for something to be stopped or not, because we are blind to the whole truth.

So the Holocaust was a “blessing in disguise”? God permitted it, because in his infinite “wisdom” he new that preventing any of those atrocities would have brought forth something even more “evil”.

I would like to see a defense attorney try this kind of argument: “Your honor and members of the jury: We do not deny that the accused actually raped these kids, and then tossed them into a fiery furnace. But God might have had a good reason to permit it. And how DARE you to assume that you are smarter than God?”

I said nothing about the rape being a good thing, or intentionally doing evil that good may come of it. My example was a device to show why God might sometimes permit evil, and I am well aware that the device is imperfect. Yet, it may still be of help to the person to whom it was directed.

There is no difference between “permitting” evil and “committing” evil.

You 100% sure about that?

Genesis 50:20 You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.

Ah, so now you are a Sola Scriptura advocate? The church explicitly says that you may not commit evil so that good would come out of it.

 

[Bradski]

Anyone who accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity knows what is objectively good or evil.

Tony, you have been called out twice on bringing the UDHR to the table as an example of moral values.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document written by human beings.

The UDHR is only followed when the values it identifies do not conflict with those you already hold.

If people claim that it’s a flawed document, despite it’s best intentions, would you agree?

 

[Tigre]

The catechism says:

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Now unless dshix wants to argue that rape is not a disorder of the will, I would suggest that it is an evil act. And he argues, quite specifically, that good may come of it a(who are we to know God’s will).

He is arguing that God permits evil acts (it is His will) because good may come of it.

Maybe he didn’t mean to say that. Maybe he didn’t mean that it might be better not to stop a rape:

How about this for a solution?

God permits free will. Under that permission, an individual rapist may choose evil. The rapist’s choice is always wrong per 1761. Nevertheless, God may choose for a good to come about as a result of the rape. The act remains wrong. The rapist himself would not be able to justify the act by pointing to the good. But God, who is not the immoral actor, may choose for a good to result from the act.

In a way, is this any different from the crucifixion? A freely chosen immoral act of killing that resulted in a good? Or, as a secular example, a community rallying around a crime victim and providing support for not only the family but the community at large?

 

[Vonsalza]

Ah, so now you are a Sola Scriptura advocate? The church explicitly says that you may not commit evil so that good would come out of it.

Cut the “sola” and you’ve nailed it. If you’re going to litigate Catholic belief, you require a bit more education in order to effectively do so. Reading scripture is a blessing.

To your ill-crafted point, the verb in question was “permit”, not “commit”. One is passive, one is active. Here. oxforddictionaries.com/

Please actually read the post you’re responding to. I find it critical in forming cogent replies.

If people claim that it’s a flawed document, despite it’s best intentions, would you agree?

I’d agree it’s a flawed document. As 1. the UN has a difficult time making it’s case as the Moral Arbiter of humanity and 2. it’s pronouncements are only as authoritative as member states will enforce, I find it to be a rather arbitrary source of secular morality.

“Arbitrary” is a recurring problem for atheistic morality, especially after they profess that all morality is relative. I think you’d save yourself a lot of time and keystrokes if you’d just admit “Yeah, potentially anything is permitted. There are some things I’d like to see more and less of, but those are my own anecdotal views.”

The “Catholics” would get to be right and you would too.

 

[inocente]

It is not nonsense. Let’s take an example:

Let’s say that your great-great-great-great grandfather raped your great-great-great-great grandmother. That resulted in a child, and that child is your ancestor.

If it weren’t for that act of evil, you wouldn’t exist. And several hundred other people who may be good or may be bad, wouldn’t exist.

The point is that God can see the whole picture, and we cannot. We cannot judge whether it is better or worse for something to be stopped or not, because we are blind to the whole truth.

Suppose she was 12 years old when raped. Does the Church really teach that good may come from child rape? Or does it teach that some acts are absolutely prohibited whatever the consequencies?

 

[Bradski]

“Arbitrary” is a recurring problem for atheistic morality, especially after they profess that all morality is relative. I think you’d save yourself a lot of time and keystrokes if you’d just admit “Yeah, potentially anything is permitted. There are some things I’d like to see more and less of, but those are my own anecdotal views.”

As well as Vera pointing out that people often confuse the terms absolute and objective, you also appear to be confusing ‘relative’ (should questions of morality be determined by considering the particular situation) and ‘subjective’ (should questions of morality be determined by personal or anecdotal views).

The first is an obvious yes (killing someone is either morally acceptable or unacceptable purely depending on the situation). And the second is an obvious no (whether it is acceptable or not is independent from your personal views).

 

[Vonsalza]

As well as Vera pointing out that people often confuse the terms absolute and objective, you also appear to be confusing ‘relative’ (should questions of morality be determined by considering the particular situation) and ‘subjective’ (should questions of morality be determined by personal or anecdotal views).

The first is an obvious yes (killing someone is either morally acceptable or unacceptable purely depending on the situation). And the second is an obvious no (whether it is acceptable or not is independent from your personal views).

So whether something is “morally acceptable” is relative and questions of morality are objective. Got it.

But in another post, you stated clear that there is no objective moral truth, so how is a “question of morality” objectively decided?

How do you reconcile the contradiction?

…yet another train-wreck attempt at atheist morality. If a cogent atheistic moral scheme existed, Bradski, we’d likely know about it. You would too.

Thus far it doesn’t. All is permitted in the realm of the godless. This chaos is only restrained because you exist in a dominantly religious society. Irony of ironies.

 

[Bradski]

So whether something is “morally acceptable” is relative and questions of morality are objective. Got it.

Got it? That’s good. Now maybe you can tell us whether you agree with it or not.

But in another post, you stated clear that there is no objective moral truth, so how is a “question of morality” objectively decided?

Carl used the term ‘objective morality’ (I think that he meant absolute, but he can confirm that). I used his term and asked him how he would know the answer to moral problems simply because of his belief. Especially since different people with the same beliefs come up with different answers.

And there seems to be a continual failure to understand the terms being used in this discussion. So here’s a heads-up on them.

1. There are no absolute moral statements such as ‘Killing is wrong’. That is, no moral statements that are not qualified. Whether something is wrong or not depends upon the circumstances (so murder is wrong because it is dependent upon the conditions: done with malice aforethought, unlawful, etc).
2. Therefore, all moral statements are relative. Such as ‘Killing is wrong IF…it is done with malice aforethought, unlawfully etc.
3. Moral statements are subjective only in the sense that someone may have a personal opinion as to their validity, such as: ‘I think that killing him was wrong’. A subjective opinion has no bearing on whether the act was morally acceptable or not.
4. Moral statements can therefore be objective if no personal opinion is used to make the deliberation.

And as a bonus: Morally unacceptable acts are only those where there is harm caused or where there is intent to cause harm (it doesn’t have to be physical).

So, no. Without God, all is not permitted.

 

[Blinky]

Killing isn’t always wrong (e.g., self-defense), but murder is.

CCC 2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

 

[tonyrey]

Carl used the term ‘objective morality’ (I think that he meant absolute, but he can confirm that). I used his term and asked him how he would know the answer to moral problems simply because of his belief. Especially since different people with the same beliefs come up with different answers.

And there seems to be a continual failure to understand the terms being used in this discussion. So here’s a heads-up on them.

1. There are no absolute moral statements such as ‘Killing is wrong’. That is, no moral statements that are not qualified. Whether something is wrong or not depends upon the circumstances (so murder is wrong because it is dependent upon the conditions: done with malice aforethought, unlawful, etc).

“Whether something is wrong or not depends upon the circumstances” is a moral statement to which there are no exceptions…

1. Therefore, all moral statements are relative. Such as ‘Killing is wrong IF…it is done with malice aforethought, unlawfully etc.

“all moral statements are** relative**” is another moral statement to which there are no exceptions…

1. Moral statements are subjective only in the sense that someone may have a personal opinion as to their validity, such as: ‘I think that killing him was wrong’. A subjective opinion has no bearing on whether the act was morally acceptable or not.

All opinions are necessarily subjective.

1. Moral statements can therefore be objective if no personal opinion is used to make the deliberation.

And as a bonus: Morally unacceptable acts are only those where there is harm caused or where there is intent to cause harm (it doesn’t have to be physical).

So, no. Without God, all is not permitted.

Two more moral statements to which there are no exceptions…

 

[fhansen]

Is this the case?

Dosteovskys quote has been used many times, but is there any truth to it?

Sure, without God morality becomes relative, based on human whim, or human determination in any case. This is why the very first commandment of the decalogue involves placing God first above all else. And that is the very message of the Fall of man. Adam rejected God for all practical purposes, refusing to have a God above himself, and the rest is history as they say.

Human free will enables us to consciously recognize and subjugate ourselves to a higher authority, or not. It enables us to know and to love God, two concepts that are intrinsically related and interwoven with each other (to truly know God means to love Him). We’re effectively born without that conscious subjugation/knowledge/love now; the world we live in is a world where the human will is king, with all the consequences of that situation following, for better or worse.

We’re here for the purpose of finding out for ourselves which is better: to have a God, or not to have God.

 

[Hicks]

And as a bonus: Morally unacceptable acts are only those where there is harm caused or where there is intent to cause harm (it doesn’t have to be physical).

So, no. Without God, all is not permitted.

I agree with you, but as an atheist what justification do you provide for your statement that causing harm is morally unacceptable? What difference does it make in the scheme of things whether this pile of molecules that I charmingly call a “human being” is by my actions rendered inert and reduced to its component molecules (i.e. "killed)?

All you can cite in the absence of God is personal preference: “I am strongly opposed to the Holocaust because I value human beings”. That’s nice, but insufficient. Bonus Question: How do you define harm?

 

[Bradski]

I agree with you, but as an atheist what justification do you provide for your statement that causing harm is morally unacceptable? What difference does it make in the scheme of things whether this pile of molecules that I charmingly call a “human being” is by my actions rendered inert and reduced to its component molecules (i.e. "killed)?

All you can cite in the absence of God is personal preference: “I am strongly opposed to the Holocaust because I value human beings”. That’s nice, but insufficient. Bonus Question: How do you define harm?

Matthew 7:12 aka The Golden Rule and empathy.

‘Do unto others…’ has been around for some time. In evolutionary tems it’s described as reciprocal altruism. Altruism is inbuilt and so is empathy. They are entirely natural and we wouldn’t be here without them. If you want to claim that they are God given then I won’t argue against that.

And what is harm? Hell, I’ve been banging on about the fact that immoral acts are only those that actually cause harm and I’m pretty certain that no-one has asked for a definition of harm before.

It’s seems like an easy question, but I’m not so sure. It’s very tempting to play a get-out-of jail card and say it means different things to different people. Which is true. But perhaps we need to define it that way only as it relates to the person to whom the harm is being done.

For example, I might slap my wife playfully on the butt but if I did that to a girl in work I’d find myself in some trouble.

How about: Harm is the removal and/or the restriction of someone’s freedom. That would include someone’s freedom to not be subjected to physical or emotional injury.

I think that needs some work, so feel free to add anything…

 

[Vonsalza]

Got it? That’s good. Now maybe you can tell us whether you agree with it or not.

In a rhetorical exercise my agreement is irrelevant.

1. There are no absolute moral statements such as ‘Killing is wrong’. That is, no moral statements that are not qualified. Whether something is wrong or not depends upon the circumstances (so murder is wrong because it is dependent upon the conditions: done with malice aforethought, unlawful, etc).

You’re saying there are no absolute moral statements in general, but there are absolute moral statements in particular. So there are absolute moral statements? Or there aren’t? Which one is it?

And what would a “absolute-particular moral statement” be if they do exist?

1. Therefore, all moral statements are relative. Such as ‘Killing is wrong IF…it is done with malice aforethought, unlawfully etc.

Very good. A religious person would identify a religious tenet to provide their “why”. So how is “Killing is wrong IF …it is done with malice aforethought, unlawfully etc.” proofed as true in an atheist paradigm?

1. Moral statements are subjective only in the sense that someone may have a personal opinion as to their validity, such as: ‘I think that killing him was wrong’. A subjective opinion has no bearing on whether the act was morally acceptable or not.

Excellent. So how does an atheist know in a non-subjective way that an immoral act is duly immoral? What provides the pillar of objectivity?

1. Moral statements can therefore be objective if no personal opinion is used to make the deliberation.

Alright. So, again, what is the objective source of atheist morality beyond themselves?

And as a bonus: Morally unacceptable acts are only those where there is harm caused or where there is intent to cause harm (it doesn’t have to be physical).

So who determines if a particular act is harmful? Is their power to do so binding on other people? How is harm weighed so they we may pick the least harmful of a group of only-harmful choices? Is it “ok” to produce harm if we think it’ll generate a greater, off-setting good?

Not new questions. But I await your innovations should you choose to provide.