Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
MarcBee, since there is no God, then there is no system of ethics or morality beyond those invented by humans. And therefore none of them are "objective or transcendent".
That being the case, the only ground you have for objecting to "genocide" is your personal preferences, feelings, and will. Should your personal feelings be forced on everyone else?
And why are you so holier than thou, you speak as if YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are the standard of what constitutes "enlightenment" while disparaging everyone else who might not accept YOU as the final arbiter of right and wrong?
|
<<since there is no God, then there is no system of ethics or morality beyond those invented by humans. And therefore none of them are "objective or transcendent". >>>
Agreed on that point, and neither is any faith-based morality "objective or transcendent." Believers are constantly making exceptions to not apply any moral blame to their god or biblical heroes. When we approach any rule system with the first rule being "The guy at at the top of ladder is big and powerful, and cannot be blamed for any wrongdoing, regardless how bad it seems," then THAT morality is subjective, too. All moral codes are subjective to some degree, and IMO, that's not necessarily the problem. Objective vs. subjective isn't even the most useful question. Humanity has arrived at some workable moral solutions without having to claim "objectivity". But the religious mind demands absolute certitude, of course.
<<That being the case, the only ground you have for objecting to "genocide" is your personal preferences, feelings, and will. Should your personal feelings be forced on everyone else?;>>
If the rest of the world agrees that genocide is bad, then it's NOT JUST my opinion, but rather my opinion informed by and reflected in a universally well-argued moral code--genocide is wrong, morally. Nor is that to suggest the whole world has to agree about any moral code. We could hedge our certitude about that and say it's "the world's preference" and the results would be just as good, just as enforceable, to the extant that it is.
If you can, consider that moral codes can, have, and continue to arise naturally. Not closely analogous to humans, of course, but consider a pack of wolves. They have a strong set of rules that govern the behavior of each member (Alphas, Betas, aunts, uncles, offspring, etc etc.) The way they behave (and the pack would say "ARE SUPPOSED to behave") is enforced by the whole group, often in concert with each other. This we might stretch a little and call it "wolf morality". From their perspective, good decisions from each member delivers a "good" result for the pack, namely survival, if not also well being and a sort of wolf happiness. I can even imagine an alpha wolf evaluating (in wolfie terms) how the pack is doing. "Are we sickly and hungry, or are we thriving and raising pups? Is that numbskull with the black rump holding us back from success?" At any rate, such a measure (survival and well being of a group) is probably an objective measure of good wolf behavior. But how to get there--that's the subjective aspect. For animals, natural selection yields evolution, IOW, "that which has brought us this far, so far."
None of this is claiming we are just wild animals (morally speaking.) But human morality is also functional, and evolves to become more and more functional. Our powers of evaluation are huge. We are able to invent laws to solve problems, to experiment, and to judge the results. Often, the good results survive, if not thrive--that's evolution. Yes, this means we may disagree about what is "best" for humanity to thrive, as well as how to get there (subjectivity.) But that same process has been happening ever since the first humans tried to plant a seed for food (or longer.) Therefore, morality had been developing long before any so-called sacred texts were claimed to come from god. Morality is naturally inherent to being human. I recently read about an experiment where (I forget, 1 or 2 or 3 month old?) human babies were experimentally shown to have a pretty good, inherent sense of "fairness" at least to the satisfaction of the researchers. So, moral sense is both natural component, and obviously also is developed via culture and teaching (which also have evolutionary components.) Apparently christians think they have a so-called "objective moral system" in order to have any authority about moral questions. I have no need to claim "objectivity" but I do depend on the shared human experience and shared human knowledge to support my arguments. If someone can't stand that, and they prefer to label a collation of ancient stories and reconstructed epistles the "Word of God," they will probably continue to do so, regardless of my or anyone's contrary opinion.
<<And why are you so holier than thou>>
I'm not <<hollier than thou>> I thought you are the holy ones, according to your infallible Anthology of Ancient Stories and Letters.
<<as if YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are he standard of what constitutes "enlightenment" >>
I thought almost everyone here posts their OPINIONS. I also assume that anyone who thinks that they are educated can express themselves within a tone of "enlightenment." We are even allowed to use sarcasm! Maybe one thing that bugs y'all is I try to support my opinions using one language--the language of reason, not the language of faith. You, however, are allowed to toggle between two languages, whichever one suits the moment. When the evidence of demonstrable reality can't support your belief, you appeal to the supernatural world. For example, I claim that human morality existed WAY BEFORE any so-called scriptures were ever delivered to anyone. Social scientists can prove that (to the extent any history can be "proven.") But instead of the conclusion of careful anthropology, you will cite a scripture to claim, "No, our god in heaven planted some kind of moral knowledge in everyone in the very beginning. But then he improved upon it through history with written laws." So, appeal to ancient supernaturalistic suppositions is all you have when normal reason or demonstrable evidence fails your argument. Maybe people naturally feel "disparaged" if and when they realize the huge difference between fanciful explanations based on an invisible supernatural world and what the educated world has to say about a given issue of reality.
<<accept YOU as the final arbiter of right and wrong?>>
I am no final arbiter for anything. But I am qualified to expose and refute some of the claims of christians, because I've "seen" and believed exactly the way christians "see" and believe, having been a faith-filled believer for 21 years. Christians can't STAND the claim that someone can simply leave the faith in "good standing," or (put differently) that someone is able to realize and judge one's OWN belief system as a big fraud, and do something bold about it. They almost have to say, "You didn't really experience Jesus," in order to avoid their cognitive dissonance, or some other theological explanation that preserves the power of Trustworthy Jesus, who said he would never let anyone down, right?
I have no power nor authority aside from the merit of my words, some of them demonstrably true, unlike the world of faith-based "knowledge."
Now, can anyone here tell us exactly WHAT the moral system of the bible is? I notice a collection of laws, and some good aphorisms. (The Golden Rule is nice, but not original with Jesus. Similar teaching appeared 500 years earlier, Confucianism. Not claiming that a moral system should be unique to be credible, but I'm assuming christian think all correct morality was handed down from god, and appears in the bible, correct?) So, IS THERE a system of morality that attempts to teach one how to one think about moral problems? Or is it, "Just find the bible rule that you think applies to your situation, and obey that?" Or maybe it's the exit ramp I used to believe in: "I'll just pray about it, and the Holy Ghost will lead me."