[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874207]But why is 1) true? Because you say god says so? But here's the problem, you still sound highly subjective.[/QUOTE]
Number 1 is either true or false for everybody, there is no subjectivity involved. You can both disagree with number 1 and still agree that the argument is rational.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874203]It's define by his nature. This is different than saying it is defined by his choice. If it is defined by his choice then there are other choices available, but if by his nature then only one possible system exists. There simply isn't anything else to even think about choosing from (well, non arbitrarily).[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I understand this, so he is constrained by a certain system of morality? Why couldn't that system of morality be more optimal in terms of reducing suffering?
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874235]Number 1 is either true or false, there is no subjectivity involved. You can both disagree with number 1 and still agree that the argument is rational.[/QUOTE]
But what defines that as objectively true or false? It seems like a subjective true or false
You just call it objective and leave it at that and don't tell me why it is or show me how it is, it's just a matter of faith in god and I don't see how you can call that rational
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874232]No, it's for Yah.[/QUOTE]
That may be your higher abstracted intention, but it is implemented mentally using emotions.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43874237]I'm not sure I understand this, so he is constrained by a certain system of morality? Why couldn't that system of morality be more optimal in terms of reducing suffering?[/QUOTE]
You are assuming that reducing suffering has objective significance on it's own. This is my point. The only objective system is the one that flows from God's nature. Every other system makes unfounded assumptions or rests on arbitrary assertions.
He isn't constrained because no other system exists. God can't say: "I think I'll choose moral system B instead of moral system A" because there is no non-arbitrary moral system B.
The people that think that our modern society doesn't need religion should remember who religion helps. As our society evolves, these people will no longer need religion and it will gradually disappear.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874263]He isn't constrained because no other system exists. God can't say: "I think I'll choose moral system B instead of moral system A" because there is no non-arbitrary moral system B.[/QUOTE]
I'm struggling to grapple with this concept. Isn't morality tied to emotional responses such as suffering and happiness, and aren't those emotions subjectively experienced?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43874366]I'm struggling to grapple with this concept. Isn't morality tied to emotional responses such as suffering and happiness, and aren't those emotions subjectively experienced?[/QUOTE]
I don't believe morality to be connected to those things inherently. For example: the murder of an innocent life is objectively bad, even if it were to lead to an overall increase in happiness.
The other thing to remember is that under the Christian system you must take eternity into account, not just earthly lives. So if an action leads to happiness on earth, but despair in eternity, then it most definitely increases suffering.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
Maybe this explanation will work better: Any objective moral system must be based on some non-arbitrary objective goal or fact and no moral systems not based on the nature of God (which is objective and unchanging) has any non-arbitrary objective goal or fact.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874512]I don't believe morality to be connected to those things inherently. For example: the murder of an innocent life is objectively bad, even if it were to lead to an overall increase in happiness.[/QUOTE]
so classical morality problem for you then
you're watching a train go down a track. You see that down one tunnel is one person on a track. Down the other is 5. Currently the train will kill the 5 people. You can switch it to save the five and sacrifice the 5. They're all innocent people.
After you've done this you walk away, across the bridge and find yourself again, above a set of tracks. This time though, there is a very fat man with you, a jovial and friendly man that you would generally enjoy to spend time with. However, there is a train coming down the tracks, it will hit, and kill 5 innocent people. The only thing you can do is to push your new found fat friend over the railings and hope his body stops the train, which it would in fact do. What do you do?
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874512]I don't believe morality to be connected to those things inherently. For example: the murder of an innocent life is objectively bad, even if it were to lead to an overall increase in happiness.[/QUOTE]
Why is it objectively bad? I appreciate that we intuitively feel that it is bad, but I'm not sure how such a conclusion could be objectively derived.
[QUOTE]The other thing to remember is that under the Christian system you must take eternity into account, not just earthly lives. So if an action leads to happiness on earth, but despair in eternity, then it most definitely increases suffering.[/QUOTE]
Surely any quantity of happiness or suffering experienced during our finite Earthly lives is negligible when compared to eternity, so our experiences on Earth are objectively of no moral consequence as long as they ensure the eternal experience of those involved is unaffected?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874567]so classical morality problem for you then
you're watching a train go down a track. You see that down one tunnel is one person on a track. Down the other is 5. Currently the train will kill the 5 people. You can switch it to save the five and sacrifice the 5. They're all innocent people.
After you've done this you walk away, across the bridge and find yourself again, above a set of tracks. This time though, there is a very fat man with you, a jovial and friendly man that you would generally enjoy to spend time with. However, there is a train coming down the tracks, it will hit, and kill 5 innocent people. The only thing you can do is to push your new found fat friend over the railings and hope his body stops the train, which it would in fact do. What do you do?[/QUOTE]
Don't do anything. The blood isn't on my hands.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874620]Don't do anything. The blood isn't on my hands.[/QUOTE]
Now you're the fat guy on the bridge. You can throw yourself off to save 5 people or save your own life
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
and again, nice classic avoidance technique
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874567]so classical morality problem for you then
you're watching a train go down a track. You see that down one tunnel is one person on a track. Down the other is 5. Currently the train will kill the 5 people. You can switch it to save the five and sacrifice the 5. They're all innocent people.
After you've done this you walk away, across the bridge and find yourself again, above a set of tracks. This time though, there is a very fat man with you, a jovial and friendly man that you would generally enjoy to spend time with. However, there is a train coming down the tracks, it will hit, and kill 5 innocent people. The only thing you can do is to push your new found fat friend over the railings and hope his body stops the train, which it would in fact do. What do you do?[/QUOTE]
Let me start by saying that I believe God to judge the heart and not the action. So as long as I am trying to do the best job possible without contradicting my conscious (acting out of selfish desires, pride, etc.), then it is the right thing to do.
I can't know exactly what I would do without being there, but I'll give you what I think I would do:
In the first situation I would choose to have the train kill the one person. Without knowing anything about the groups the death of the one would probably lead to the least amount of sadness. I think of this as more of a utility question then a moral one though.
In the second situation I would allow the five to die. The act of intentionally killing someone is very different from allowing others to die.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ziks;43874589]Why is it objectively bad? I appreciate that we intuitively feel that it is bad, but I'm not sure how such a conclusion could be objectively derived.[/QUOTE]
It is only objectively bad in the context of the Christian system (and some other religious systems). Outside of that I see no reason for it to be objectively bad.
[QUOTE]Surely any quantity of happiness or suffering experienced during our finite Earthly lives is negligible when compared to eternity, so our experiences on Earth are objectively of no moral consequence as long as they ensure the eternal experience of those involved is unaffected?[/QUOTE]
This is definitely something to consider. There are plenty of times that Paul, along with other apostles spoke about how their personal suffering is nothing compared to what they will gain in eternity.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874635]Let me start by saying that I believe God to judge the heart and not the action. So as long as I am trying to do the best job possible without contradicting my conscious (acting out of selfish desires, pride, etc.), then it is the right thing to do.
I can't know exactly what I would do without being there, but I'll give you what I think I would do:
In the first situation I would choose to have the train kill the one person. Without knowing anything about the groups the death of the one would probably lead to the least amount of sadness. I think of this as more of a utility question then a moral one though.
In the second situation I would allow the five to die. The act of intentionally killing someone is very different from allowing others to die.[/QUOTE]
But one could say your inaction caused the death of 5 innocent people
In fact, one kind of has to say that as you are in the position to change the fates of these people. In fact, it is your responsibility at that point. Let's just say, even god thinks it's your actions that are critical here. Hypothetically.
The decision that these events are different is subjective, in either case you are directly responsible for the death of one person and the survival of 5. The only difference in is where you subjecitvely draw a distinction. God would see the heart of the matter like you said, would he not, how could he not see your best intentions to sacrifice one to save 5? Surely god would know your heart was in the right place
So you've made a subjective call differing from gods morality then
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874620]Don't do anything. The blood isn't on my hands.[/QUOTE]
Your model of morality leads to a net result of 5 people killed.
Mine leads to a net result of 1 person killed.
But your system of morality is obviously objectively correct so I guess you win.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874690]But one could say your inaction caused the death of 5 innocent people
In fact, one kind of has to say that as you are in the position to change the fates of these people. In fact, it is your responsibility at that point. Let's just say, even god thinks it's your actions that are critical here. Hypothetically.
The decision that these events are different is subjective, in either case you are directly responsible for the death of one person and the survival of 5. The only difference in is where you subjecitvely draw a distinction. God would see the heart of the matter like you said, would he not, how could he not see your best intentions to sacrifice one to save 5? Surely god would know your heart was in the right place
So you've made a subjective call differing from gods morality then[/QUOTE]
Of course my decision would be different if you change the foundation of where my morals come from. I believe God to have specifically told us that murder is wrong and killing the fat man would be murder, even if it leads to those 5 being saved.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874717]Of course my decision would be different if you change the foundation of where my morals come from. I believe God to have specifically told us that murder is wrong and killing the fat man would be murder, even if it leads to those 5 being saved.[/QUOTE]
But even god knows that in your heart, you were just saving 5 people and not murdering one.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874730]But even god knows that in your heart, you were just saving 5 people and not murdering one.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
It's all well and good when you guys twist my moral systems, but when someone does that to you, oh no, it's not fair[/QUOTE]
... The Bible specifically states that murder is wrong. You can't just say: "Hey, ignore your moral system in order to answer my question and then apply your answer to your system that you ignored when answering."
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874730]But even god knows that in your heart, you were just saving 5 people and not murdering one.[/QUOTE]
... but I DO know that it would be murder.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874754]... The Bible specifically states that murder is wrong. You can't just say: "Hey, ignore your moral system in order to answer my question and then apply your answer to your system."[/QUOTE]
But you're murdering 5 people by inaction, or you're murdering 1 by action, in either case you murder people
I'm not twisting anything to say that, that's the event and you're taking a very subjective view on it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874765]But you're murdering 5 people by inaction, or you're murdering 1 by action, in either case you murder people
I'm not twisting anything to say that, that's the event and you're taking a very subjective view on it.[/QUOTE]
Allowing death simply isn't the same thing as murder, by any definition. Even our human society recognizes that difference.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874773]Allowing death simply isn't the same thing as murder, by any definition.[/QUOTE]
So in the first case where you would pull the lever to switch to murder one person, if you just stood there and did nothing, you would not think your inaction is murder of 5 people?
Because it is
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874765]But you're murdering 5 people by inaction, or you're murdering 1 by action, in either case you murder people
I'm not twisting anything to say that, that's the event and you're taking a very subjective view on it.[/QUOTE]
Murder is not the same as killing.
Murder is the intentional unlawful killing of someone.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874782]So in the first case where you would pull the lever to switch to murder one person, if you just stood there and did nothing, you would not think your inaction is murder of 5 people?
Because it is[/QUOTE]
No, I don't think it would be... just like a judge wouldn't think it is in our society. You can't just claim random definitions to support your point. Neither the common, nor the religious, definition of murder is what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43874366]I'm struggling to grapple with this concept. Isn't morality tied to emotional responses such as suffering and happiness, and aren't those emotions subjectively experienced?[/QUOTE]
People think that moral has it's roots on God, but in fact it has it's roots on the belief of God and religion.
Take the Hebrews for example.
When Moses led them from Egypt he decided that he needed a way to reform his people, because they got many habits from the egycians.
Now if God spoke to him or not is a matter of belief, but the results of this belief in God is what we can observe. The morality that he established helped shape our wester society, along with other beliefs systems (from romans, greeks and so forth) when everything came togheter during the Roman Empire, but that's another business for another time.
He wrote books that gave people answers about where they came from because they all had no religion to unify them.
He wrote books that gave people hope about where they could go if they were "righteous" because the life on the desert was going to be harsh.
He wrote books of laws so people wouldn't kill themselves at the desert.
I would like to formally declare that my model of morality is subjectively better than God's defined morality, if my model leads to 4 more innocent people being alive than God's.
Your action and inactions are the only actions that matter in this "case" that a judge is presiding over. There is no one to blame for the people being in those places and there is no one to blame for the trains being on the courses they were on. The ONLY actions that can be taken into account here are yours. Your inactions are actions.
If you stand idly by in this situation where nothing but what you do matters, you really don't think that's murder?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43874829]I would like to formally declare that my model of morality is subjectively better than God's defined morality, if my model leads to 4 more innocent people being alive than God's.[/QUOTE]
Being arbitrarily better isn't really an accomplishment. I mean, you can literally claim that about anything ever. (I'm subjectively better than Tiger Woods at golf).
[QUOTE=sgman91;43874849]Being arbitrarily better isn't really an accomplishment.[/QUOTE]
it's not like your metric is any less arbitrary just because you define it as objective without rhyme or reason beyond faith
the definition of murder is killing with intent. so you can't murder someone for paying no mind to them. murder is an action. and inaction is just inaction. therefore you cannot murder through inaction
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874865]it's not like your metric is any less arbitrary just because you define it as objective without rhyme or reason beyond faith[/QUOTE]
The difference is that mine is based on whether a fact is true or not (does god exist). Yours is based on only your personal opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
