Without God, all is permitted

[Bradski]

In a rhetorical exercise my agreement is irrelevant.

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

I found some time ago that I was having to repeat myself numerous times to the same posters. I would make my points as clearly as I could, yet the same questions, already answered, kept coming up. As they seem to be here. I promised myself I would stop reiterating the same points over and over. However…

To repeat…

There are no absolute moral statements. They are necessarily relative otherwise you are saying that act is wrong irrespective of the conditions.

If you think that moral statements can be absolute, that is, with no conditions, then tell me if this statement is morally correct or not:

Killing is wrong.

And as to how we know what is acceptable or not…I mean, good grief, you actually quoted my explanation to that.

And as to what is harmful and who decides…well, we’re having a go at defining what harm is in the first instance. Feel free to add your two cents. I think it’s going to be difficult enough getting agreement on that.

Getting agreement on how much harm is too much is maybe a bridge too far. To give an example, if your kid gives your wife some lip, how far can you go to punish him? Send him to his room? Bury him up to his neck in the garden and throw rocks at his head (I read somewhere that that is the punishment someone suggested).

Ask a thousand fathers and get a thousand answers.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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

There is no higher Liberty than free will.
There is no Equality unless we are all created equal.
Our Fraternity isn’t real unless we all share the same Father.

But you don’t need God to accept the UDHR. Many who do are atheist or Hindu or Buddhist etc. It’s a secular document. It wouldn’t be universally accepted if it wasn’t.

The biblical theist argues that there is a reason humans all intuit the (ontological) existence of objective right and wrong, good and evil - even if they don’t exactly know why they think that.

#God-shaped hole

 

[tonyrey]

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

Do you deny they are **moral **principles? If so please explain why.

 

[Vonsalza]

I found some time ago that I was having to repeat myself numerous times to the same posters…

It’s because your argument appears to be inconsistent. When they ask for an example of it “in motion” you consistently balk with more generality.
While you believe that this is revealing the “dense-ness” of the one asking the questions, it may be more indicative of your inability to actually answer them - even if you don’t realize it.

I’ll elaborate:

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?

Asked because you stated “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).”

This means that you believe in absolutes, they’re just not as expansive in their range. They’re particular in their “absolute-ness”. Provide one for us

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

This was asked in response to your “4. Moral statements can therefore be objective if no personal opinion is used to make the deliberation.”

So what is an objective moral source for an atheist? Provide one for us.

As someone who regularly engages with people for a living, if they keep asking the same questions, then the answers has probably been insufficient.

 

[Bradski]

Do you deny they are **moral **principles? If so please explain why.

Yeah. But you need to back this up yourself. We’re on the same page, but others are questioning you bringing the UDHR up as a moral document.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This means that you believe in absolutes, they’re just not as expansive in their range. They’re particular in their “absolute-ness”.

Hmm… this reminds me of “Animal farm”. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Absolute means: “under any and all circumstances”. As soon as you “qualify” it by specifying certain criteria, it becomes a “relative” statement. The concept of “particular absolute-ness” is an oxymoron.

 

[inocente]

So what is an objective moral source for an atheist? Provide one for us.

The foundation for secular morality is often dignity - r.e.s.p.e.c.t.

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” - Preamble, UDHR

“In modern philosophical discussions, humans are universally regarded as the paradigm objects of moral respect; if anything has moral standing or dignity and so warrants respect, it is the individual human being.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/

 

[tonyrey]

Yeah. But you need to back this up yourself. We’re on the same page, but others are questioning you bringing the UDHR up as a moral document.

Please cite examples. Their definition of morality must be idiosyncratic if it encourages servitude, inequality and alienation.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no higher Liberty than free will.
There is no Equality unless we are all created equal.
Our Fraternity isn’t real unless we all share the same Father.

Irrefutable! Accidents of birth are an inadequate explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

Hmm… this reminds me of “Animal farm”. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Absolute means: “under any and all circumstances”. As soon as you “qualify” it by specifying certain criteria, it becomes a “relative” statement. The concept of “particular absolute-ness” is an oxymoron.

According to that argument it is an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Absolute means: “under any and all circumstances”. As soon as you “qualify” it by specifying certain criteria, it becomes a “relative” statement. The concept of “particular absolute-ness” is an oxymoron.

It can also mean that any particular act has a true moral value, known by God within His infinite vision of love, that can be understood by us according to certain criteria which include its seriousness, the understanding by the person carrying out the action and the intent. In other words, there is an absolute reality to ourselves and our actions, within the background of the ocean of compassion which underlies all creation extending through all time and space.

This reality is not relative to us, but appears to be so when we place ourselves at the centre. The situation is not dissimilar to the apparent movement of the stars and planets. Ultimately, all being revolves around the One Centre, the perfect relationality, from which it springs.

An informed conscience provides insight into the absolute moral nature of what we do, revealed as we become more Christ-like through God’s grace and our acts of charity.

 

[rinnie]

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?

The Church teaches that only God can take a bad and bring some good out of it. And yes although there could be a horrible act of child rape, and horrible for the child, another child could be a result of this, and maybe someone who could never have a Child may adopt this Child.

Although the act was unspeakable and unacceptable, and as horrible as it was, a beautiful healthy child could be the result. Although this is not what God ever planned or anyone ever wanted.

Unless of course you are saying the Child that resulted out of the horrible act is somehow not pure and completely blameless of this horrible act as well as the poor mother. And you disagree the pure child is a good.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14514523:

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?

The Church teaches that only God can take a bad and bring some good out of it. And yes although there could be a horrible act of child rape, and horrible for the child, another child could be a result of this, and maybe someone who could never have a Child may adopt this Child.

Although the act was unspeakable and unacceptable, and as horrible as it was, a beautiful healthy child could be the result. Although this is not what God ever planned or anyone ever wanted.

Unless of course you are saying the Child that resulted out of the horrible act is somehow not pure and completely blameless of this horrible act as well as the poor mother. And you disagree the pure child is a good.

:ehh: Two problems.

I asked you, does the Church teach that some acts are absolutely prohibited whatever the consequences? It only needed a yes/no answer but instead you invented the rosiest possible unintended consequences, as if the utilitarian rating of the outcome somehow mitigates child rape. But the child rapist cannot stand before God and argue the rape produced a beautiful baby for adoption, so that’s not so bad then. There is no mitigation, none whatsoever. Ask your priest whether the Church teaches that child rape is absolutely prohibited whatever the consequences. If he were to say no then with God all is permitted, since the morality of every act would depend on unintended beneficial mitigation. But I predict that’s not what the Church teaches.

The second problem is that your entire scenario unfolds exactly the same with or without God. The outcome is the same whether or not God exists. No different whatsoever. So plainly, it isn’t true to say that only God can take that bad thing and bring some good of it, even if that was relevant to the morality of child rape, which it isn’t.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14514523:

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?

The Church teaches that only God can take a bad and bring some good out of it. And yes although there could be a horrible act of child rape, and horrible for the child, another child could be a result of this, and maybe someone who could never have a Child may adopt this Child.

Although the act was unspeakable and unacceptable, and as horrible as it was, a beautiful healthy child could be the result. Although this is not what God ever planned or anyone ever wanted.

Unless of course you are saying the Child that resulted out of the horrible act is somehow not pure and completely blameless of this horrible act as well as the poor mother. And you disagree the pure child is a good.

:ehh: Two problems.

I asked you, does the Church teach that some acts are absolutely prohibited whatever the consequences? It only needed a yes/no answer but instead you invented the rosiest possible unintended consequences, as if the utilitarian rating of the outcome somehow mitigates child rape. But the child rapist cannot stand before God and argue the rape produced a beautiful baby for adoption, so that’s not so bad then. There is no mitigation, none whatsoever. Ask your priest whether the Church teaches that child rape is absolutely prohibited whatever the consequences. If he were to say no then with God all is permitted, since the morality of every act would depend on unintended beneficial mitigation. But I predict that’s not what the Church teaches.

The second problem is that your entire scenario unfolds exactly the same with or without God. The outcome is the same whether or not God exists. No different whatsoever. So plainly, it isn’t true to say that only God can take that bad thing and bring some good of it, even if that was relevant to the morality of child rape.

So I’m thinking you maybe need to set out your stall again. A tweak here and there.