"ALL moral standards and values are man-made"

[tosca1]

It had everything to do with your OP. You asked if a particular act was good or bad, in other words is it a moral or immoral act. It all comes down to rights.

Who gave those rights? Or, where did those rights come from?

 

[tosca1]

Since moral values change over time even those held by religious people then it is germain to the point. Either your morals are handed down from god and immutable as YOU claim or they are not. Since we know they are NOT immutable and do change over time then they cannot have been handed down by God

Just because people change their values doesn't mean objective moral values are immutable.



Furthermore you said:

"Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral."


Laws reflect society's changing values!
Therefore, to atheists, it should follow that laws make something "moral," or "immoral," isn't it?
After all, as you'd believe and said it....morals didn't come from God.


Since you'd argued that, "Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral," then kindly explain to us, why?

You're actually suggesting that objective moral values are immutable since apparently, as you'd said, legalities wouldn't be able to make those changes!

So....explain that.

 

[spud_meister]

Yes. God is immutable.

So is it moral to kill disrespectful children?

Leviticus 20:9

9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

But why would it be bad to cause harm? What moral high ground are you standing on?

Ironically, the simplest answer comes from the Bible, "do unto others". We know that we dislike being harmed, and having evolved a sense of empathy, we can reason others also dislike being harmed. Empathy, which is the basis for all morals, is an evolutionary trait that increases group cohesion by reducing conflict and promoting sharing, and thus increases survival. This is logically supported by simple observation, when someone is regarded as an "other", outside of a group, they are often the target of immoral behaviour, but if the sense of "otherness" can be reduced, people will act in a more moral fashion towards an individual.

 

[tosca1]

Don't lie. Isn't lying not moral?

It is a rule that is set forth by the bible in black and white. You can beat your slave as long as they don't die immediately. So you can beat them nearly to death. And it's fine because they are your property.

How is that different from modern time slavery?

That's for another topic. This thread isn't to explain Biblical verses (like slavery).

I'll be ignoring you until you've got something that relates to this thread.

 

[distraff]

There might not be any absolute right and wrong....but there are objective moral values, and we have objective moral duties to fulfill in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. The objectivity of those values and duties doesn’t suggest that they do not vary with the circumstances.

Saying there are objective moral values, is saying, something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.
A good example of that is Nazism. We say it's wrong, although the Nazis who'd committed the holocaust would say it was good.

You are just making claims. These are widely believed claims. But they are still claims. Please back them up with logic or evidence. You say there are objective moral values. Well, show me then. Don't just appeal to emotions and talk about Nazis killing Jews.

Conscience. Deep down we all know when something is wrong.

What evidence is there that your conscience is always right? Just because we feel a certain way or have intuition towards it doesn't make it true?

I suppose on the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with torturing and raping infants? Do you agree?
You wouldn't consider it wrong?

I would not consider it objectively morally wrong because objective morality is a myth. In this entire post you didn't give me a shred of evidence for its existence. I can give you logical reasons why raping and torturing infants is bad for them, society, and almost certainly bad for the rapist. You are just appealing to emotion again.

You have this belief that this fact is morally wrong. I have a belief that this act is logically wrong and a deep emotional repulsion towards it.

If you don't have any actually strong arguments for objective arguments, you can just come out and tell me. Its ok. I understand.

 

[roughdraft274]

That's for another topic. This thread isn't to explain Biblical verses (like slavery).

It's related to the topic. You are using your own personal moral system to dictate that slavery is immoral. If you were using the Bible or your god as your moral compass there is no way you'd be able to tell that slavery is immoral. That's the entire point.

And no amount of "well if you read it this way" gets rid of the fact that the bible directly condones slavery and sets forth very viscous rules in which masters can beat and torture their slaves.

 

[tosca1]

Most morality is.

So? Does that make objective moral standard null and void? No.

Relativism simply tries to justify something that deep inside we know we shouldn't be doing.

 

[Quag]

Just because people change their values doesn't mean objective moral values are immutable.

You claim morality comes from God, the Bible according to you is the word of God. The bible cosniders slavery moral, do you?
That is the most oft quoted case as it is the most flagrant but all kinds of stuff is no longer considered moral but once was in the bible do you ascribe to all of it?
Either you beleive slavery is moral and accept all the other bible "morality" or your bible is NOT the word of God and thus your entire religion is false.
Your choice!

Furthermore you said:

"Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral."


Laws reflect society's changing values! Therefore, to atheists, it does follow that being legal makes something "moral," isn't it?

Strawman. Laws are there not to reflect societies changing values but to provide rules for society to function. In western democracy those rules are meant to be fair and treat everyone equitably (note the meant to be) Non fully democratic nations less so.

As a theist is/was slavery moral or immoral depending on the laws?
BTW I am not an atheist.

 

[tosca1]

I don't know why reality is as it is. There may be no reason, no "why" at all.

How can you give a label to something that doesn't give any explanation as to what it is?
How can you identify it if we don't know exactly what something looks like, or what makes it that?

 

[tosca1]

So is it moral to kill disrespectful children?

No, it is not moral.

 

[spud_meister]

No, it is not moral.

Why would the source of all morality give an immoral command?

And why didn't you address my response on the source of morality?

 

[tosca1]

Ironically, the simplest answer comes from the Bible, "do unto others". We know that we dislike being harmed, and having evolved a sense of empathy, we can reason others also dislike being harmed. Empathy, which is the basis for all morals, is an evolutionary trait that increases group cohesion by reducing conflict and promoting sharing, and thus increases survival. This is logically supported by simple observation, when someone is regarded as an "other", outside of a group, they are often the target of immoral behaviour, but if the sense of "otherness" can be reduced, people will act in a more moral fashion towards an individual.

Empathy didn't evolve. We've had empathy all along! It came along with all the other feelings.

Sympathy is the capacity to feel deeply for someone because you do, in fact, share the experience. If you got burned, you know how getting burnt must feel like. Empathy is being able to imagine what one must be going through because you've had the same or similar experience.

 

[tosca1]

Why would the source of all morality give an immoral command?

He's the boss! :mrgreen:

He's the one in control!

You're simply His creation - He can lay down any law that He wants you to follow!

That's the problem when we don't have any real understanding of the concept of God. We try to see Him as we see a human.
We think the same laws apply to God.


It is immoral for YOU to kill children. You're not God. You have no control over the consequences.

And why didn't you address my response on the source of morality?

Which one? I must've missed it.

 

[Quag]

He's the boss! :mrgreen:

He's the one in control!

You're simply His creation - He can lay down any law that He wants you to follow!

That's the problem when we don't have any real understanding of the concept of God. We try to see Him as we see a human. We think the same laws apply to God.

It is immoral for YOU to kill children. You're not God. You have no control over the consequences.







Which one? I must've missed it.

Tosca is slavery moral?

 

[spud_meister]

He's the boss! :mrgreen:

He's the one in control!

You're simply His creation - He can lay down any law that He wants you to follow!

That's the problem when we don't have any real understanding of the concept of God. We try to see Him as we see a human.
We think the same laws apply to God.


It is immoral for YOU to kill children. You're not God. You have no control over the consequences.

So it's never moral to kill a child, unless God tells you to, but morality is immutable.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Ikari]

Who gave those rights? Or, where did those rights come from?

They are constructs of humanity, understood through intelligence and reason. This has been the subject of philosophy for centuries now.

 

[tosca1]

Tosca is slavery moral?

Before I answer anymore of your posts, you have some serious explaining to do.

Originally Posted by Quag View Post

Since moral values change over time even those held by religious people then it is germain to the point. Either your morals are handed down from god and immutable as YOU claim or they are not. Since we know they are NOT immutable and do change over time then they cannot have been handed down by God

tosca

Just because people change their values doesn't mean objective moral values are immutable.



Furthermore you said:

"Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral."


Laws reflect society's changing values!
Therefore, to atheists, it should follow that laws make something "moral," or "immoral," isn't it?
After all, as you'd believe and said it....morals didn't come from God.


Since you'd argued that, "Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral," then kindly explain to us, why?

You're actually suggesting that objective moral values are immutable since apparently, as you'd said, legalities wouldn't be able to make those changes!

So....explain that.

 

[soot]

So? Does that make objective moral standard null and void? No.

There is no objective moral standard.

 

[tosca1]

They are constructs of humanity, understood through intelligence and reason. This has been the subject of philosophy for centuries now.

What philosophy, which philosopher(s)? Cite.

 

[tosca1]

There is no objective moral standard.

That's just your opinion.

 

[roughdraft274]

I suppose on the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with torturing and raping infants? Do you agree?
You wouldn't consider it wrong?

It's not the atheistic view that supports rape.

Numbers 31:17 - "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Deuteronomy 22:28 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekelsc of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

[soot]

That's just your opinion.

No a priori proof has ever been offered for the existence of a single, objective, standard of morality.

So saying that this is "just" my opinion is like saying that a disbelief in unicorns is "just" an opinion.

I'm perfectly willing to believe in objective morality if someone can prove to me that it exists.

Absent that, belief in objective morality is like belief in the Lock Ness Monster, faires, or dragons.

I'm willing to bet that your belief in objective morality is somehow tied to your belief in some religious doctrine or theology (or, much less likely, to Kant's categorical imperative, which though in itself objective is really subjective as it leaves the determination of what rules should be objectively held up to each individual).

Anyhow, you believe that some standard of morality is objective because of an appeal to what you've been told about God.

Thing is, not everyone believes in the same God or religion.

Consequently, not everyone holds the same moral standard, and it's possible for people to hold two very different moral standards and for both to claim that their standard is objective.

If two people hold differing moral standards and both claim that their standard, based on their understanding of their God/religion is objective, how do we decide who is right?

 

[tosca1]

So it's never moral to kill a child, unless God tells you to, but morality is immutable.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth.

Where did I say, "it's NEVER MORAL to kill a child?" Cite.

 

[Quag]

Before I answer anymore of your posts, you have some serious explaining to do.

I already answered most of that in in post 108.

You're actually suggesting that objective moral values are immutable since apparently, as you'd said, legalities wouldn't be able to make those changes!

Nope, I said making something legal/illegal doesnt make it moral/immoral that doesnt mean morality cannot change it just means that legal/illegal does not mean moral/immoral.
Nowhere in that statement does it say that morals are immutable I only stated that they are not equivalent to laws.

So back to my question is slavery moral?

 

[tosca1]

Thing is, not everyone believes in the same God or religion.

Consequently, not everyone holds the same moral standard, and it's possible for people to hold two very different moral standards and for both to claim that their standard is objective.

If two people hold differing moral standards and both claim that their standard, based on their understanding of their God/religion is objective, how do we decide who is right?

Would you say all Muslims are terrorists?