Man

[buttercup]

Sorry but there is no 'objective' good. Good is defined by the society you live in. We believe slavery is an evil but many of our founding fathers did not. Were they evil or just used a different scale? If you were a cannibal you'd might think eating your enemy was a good thing.

OK, if there is no objective good, then you can't claim evil exists.

If there is no objective good, then what Jeffrey Dahmer did was not evil or wrong at all. In fact, without an objective measure, what Jeffrey Dahmer did is morally equivalent to an act of kindness, respect and compassion. One act cannot be better than the other, if there is no objective good.

 

[buttercup]

I don't dispute anything you wrote, my only point was that the God Maimonides defined as only being able to create good, created a world with lots of evil. If God wants to pass responsibility for evil on to his creation, that's his call but Truman wouldn't approve.

I get that, but we are not concerned with the views of Maimonides. God didn't say he was only able to create good, men did. In a sense, God DID only create good, he created free will in man. For there to be good, there must also be the possibility of evil. For there to be light, there must be the possibility of darkness. Our world is a world of CHOICE and free will, the hyena has no choice but to live according to the mandates of the hyena, but we have that choice of living lower than the jackal (creating evil), or living as a saint.

There is no evil in the snakes bite, only his nature, man alone creates evil by DOING evil according to his choice, because by dint of his ability to know God, he must likewise have the ability to know evil.

Your choice.

I'd agree with you if I believed there was an absolute measure of 'Good'. But since I don't... Are we evil if we do what we believe to acceptable. Was Jefferson evil because he kept slaves? Are we better people because we don't?

You mean it isn't absolutely 100% good to say that children and the weak should be protected from men of ill will?

Is there any situation you can justify harming a child or rationalize it as good?

Plenty of people, maybe even Washington and Jefferson might feel selling a child of slaves to be acceptable behavior. If you thought it would maintain your family or your lifestyle you may well feel it is a good thing to do.

How about sodomizing them? Is that good?

Not to me. However, if I was a Spartan I might give a very different answer.

But you would disagree with him. You would argue that it was a universal truth. Unless you are saying you would condone sodomizing a 6 year old as good. Do you? Would you ever not criticize the person doing it? Would you ever say, well that was ok that that 6 year old got fucked in the ass by that 42 year old man because that was what they did back then? No. You wouldn't. You would say that it was self evident that that was wrong and that it will always be wrong and will never be right.

The point is that I can judge people by my standards but they can also judge me by their standards. I eat animals, many don't and would consider my actions an evil. Which of us is good and which is evil?

According to society's standard, eating animals is not evil. But society's standard is not what determines objective truth.

At one time society thought owning slaves was fine. Obviously what society deems acceptable is not the same thing as objective truth.

But to answer your question, yes, eating animals is evil.

 

[alang1216]

Race is extant. Political party or ideology is extant. So no.

But evil is the absence of good.

I don't even know what you're trying to say? Evil is not extant?

 

[ding]

Race is extant. Political party or ideology is extant. So no.

But evil is the absence of good.

I don't even know what you're trying to say? Evil is not extant?

It doesn't exist in and of itself. It is like cold or darkness. It is not like political ideology or gender or race.

 

[alang1216]

Sorry but there is no 'objective' good. Good is defined by the society you live in. We believe slavery is an evil but many of our founding fathers did not. Were they evil or just used a different scale? If you were a cannibal you'd might think eating your enemy was a good thing.

OK, if there is no objective good, then you can't claim evil exists.

If there is no objective good, then what Jeffrey Dahmer did was not evil or wrong at all. In fact, without an objective measure, what Jeffrey Dahmer did is morally equivalent to an act of kindness, respect and compassion. One act cannot be better than the other, if there is no objective good.

Evil is relative to the society you live in. If you kept someone in slavery you'd be considered evil in our society, which is why it is against the law. 2,000 years ago keeping someone in slavery was admirable as it indicated your elevated social status.

 

[ding]

Sorry but there is no 'objective' good. Good is defined by the society you live in. We believe slavery is an evil but many of our founding fathers did not. Were they evil or just used a different scale? If you were a cannibal you'd might think eating your enemy was a good thing.

OK, if there is no objective good, then you can't claim evil exists.

If there is no objective good, then what Jeffrey Dahmer did was not evil or wrong at all. In fact, without an objective measure, what Jeffrey Dahmer did is morally equivalent to an act of kindness, respect and compassion. One act cannot be better than the other, if there is no objective good.

Evil is relative to the society you live in. If you kept someone in slavery you'd be considered evil in our society, which is why it is against the law. 2,000 years ago keeping someone in slavery was admirable as it indicated your elevated social status.

The problem is that you will never say that if you lived in those times you would have accepted it as good. Thus proving that you actually believe that truth and morals are absolute and not just opinions.

 

[alang1216]

Race is extant. Political party or ideology is extant. So no.

But evil is the absence of good.

I don't even know what you're trying to say? Evil is not extant?

It doesn't exist in and of itself. It is like cold or darkness. It is not like political ideology or gender or race.

If I see a dog on the street I could ignore it or I could kick it. Neither does it any good so are they both evil?

 

[alang1216]

The problem is that you will never say that if you lived in those times you would have accepted it as good. Thus proving that you actually believe that truth and morals are absolute and not just opinions.

Of course I'd have accepted it as good and I bet you would too. If your father kept slaves and everyone around you said it was admirable, I doubt you'd feel any different.

 

[ding]

Race is extant. Political party or ideology is extant. So no.

But evil is the absence of good.

I don't even know what you're trying to say? Evil is not extant?

It doesn't exist in and of itself. It is like cold or darkness. It is not like political ideology or gender or race.

If I see a dog on the street I could ignore it or I could kick it. Neither does it any good so are they both evil?

But one does harm and the other doesn't. Would you like to be kicked?

Your own behaviors in this forum show that you believe there is an absolute truth. You literally argue that what you believe should be universally accepted. And you make moral arguments all the time and you act like they are just opinions. You think you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Your own behaviors do you in.

 

[ding]

The problem is that you will never say that if you lived in those times you would have accepted it as good. Thus proving that you actually believe that truth and morals are absolute and not just opinions.

Of course I'd have accepted it as good and I bet you would too. If your father kept slaves and everyone around you said it was admirable, I doubt you'd feel any different.

Actually no. There were lots of people during those times who believed it was bad.

Reason and logic tells you it's wrong.

Truth is discovered.

 

[buttercup]

Sorry but there is no 'objective' good. Good is defined by the society you live in. We believe slavery is an evil but many of our founding fathers did not. Were they evil or just used a different scale? If you were a cannibal you'd might think eating your enemy was a good thing.

OK, if there is no objective good, then you can't claim evil exists.

If there is no objective good, then what Jeffrey Dahmer did was not evil or wrong at all. In fact, without an objective measure, what Jeffrey Dahmer did is morally equivalent to an act of kindness, respect and compassion. One act cannot be better than the other, if there is no objective good.

Evil is relative to the society you live in. If you kept someone in slavery you'd be considered evil in our society, which is why it is against the law. 2,000 years ago keeping someone in slavery was admirable as it indicated your elevated social status.

No, that is not how truth and morality actually work. Just because a particular society or country believes something is true doesn't make it true.... in the same way that just because a person believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Let me ask you a question. If there was a society who believed that brutally raping children was morally OK, does that mean what they are doing is actually OK simply because they believe it?

According to your moral relativist position, what they are doing IS acceptable, simply because they believe it, in their society. And according to your moral relativist position, we have no right to tell them they are wrong when they brutally rape children, because their morality is no better or worse than ours, they are morally equivalent, if there is no objective measure.

It makes morality utterly meaningless, at the end of the day.

 

[ding]

Sorry but there is no 'objective' good. Good is defined by the society you live in. We believe slavery is an evil but many of our founding fathers did not. Were they evil or just used a different scale? If you were a cannibal you'd might think eating your enemy was a good thing.

OK, if there is no objective good, then you can't claim evil exists.

If there is no objective good, then what Jeffrey Dahmer did was not evil or wrong at all. In fact, without an objective measure, what Jeffrey Dahmer did is morally equivalent to an act of kindness, respect and compassion. One act cannot be better than the other, if there is no objective good.

Evil is relative to the society you live in. If you kept someone in slavery you'd be considered evil in our society, which is why it is against the law. 2,000 years ago keeping someone in slavery was admirable as it indicated your elevated social status.

No, that is not how truth and morality actually work. Just because a particular society or country believes something is true doesn't make it true.... in the same way that just because a person believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Let me ask you a question. If there was a society who believed that brutally raping children was morally OK, does that mean what they are doing is actually OK simply because they believe it?

According to your moral relativist position, what they are doing IS acceptable, simply because they believe it, in their society. And according to your moral relativist position, we have no right to tell them they are wrong when they brutally rape children, because their morality is no better or worse than ours, they are morally equivalent, if there is no objective measure.

It makes morality utterly meaningless, at the end of the day.

To your point... The definition of morals is a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. The definition of standards is a level of quality or attainment. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

 

[buttercup]

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Good point. It shows that certain principles or values are truly better than others, which goes against the illogical and morally bankrupt position of moral relativism.

 

[alang1216]

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Truth is absolute, cultural values can change dramatically:

Numbers 31​

""Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."​

 

[buttercup]

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Truth is absolute, cultural values can change dramatically:

Numbers 31​

""Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."​

I wasn't talking about "cultural values." But since you brought it up, it doesn't matter whether or not "cultural values" change, that has nothing to do with the existence of an objective moral standard.

Also, I noticed you cut off my post and totally ignored my direct question to you. Please go back to post #91 and answer the question in the third paragraph.

 

[alang1216]

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Truth is absolute, cultural values can change dramatically:

Numbers 31​

""Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."​

I wasn't talking about "cultural values." But since you brought it up, it doesn't matter whether or not "cultural values" change, that has nothing to do with the existence of an objective moral standard.

Also, I noticed you cut off my post and totally ignored my direct question to you. Please go back to post #91 and answer the question in the third paragraph.

"Let me ask you a question. If there was a society who believed that brutally raping children was morally OK, does that mean what they are doing is actually OK simply because they believe it?"

I'd say no but then I'm not a believer. Are you? If you honestly believed God commanded you to keep young girls who are virgins for yourself would you question God's morality? If you're not a believer but everyone around, your father, uncle, brothers, and cousins, kept those young virgins what would you do?

 

[Taz]

Do you have empirical evidence that God doesn't exist?

No, that's why I'm an agnostic. There's no real proof either way.

 

[ding]

Do you have empirical evidence that God doesn't exist?

No, that's why I'm an agnostic. There's no real proof either way.

Except for what was created.

 

[ding]

Truth is not dependent on us at all. It just is what it is. I can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't make it true simply because I believe it.

Truth is absolute...

100% and eternal and unchanging and discovered.

 

[Taz]

Do you have empirical evidence that God doesn't exist?

No, that's why I'm an agnostic. There's no real proof either way.

Except for what was created.

You've yet to tie what's around us to your preferred invisible guy. You just say, look around you that proves my god. Umm... no, that's not how it works for people with a whole brain.