Christian Morality

[Peter Holmes]

2 People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).

Why shouldn't one do that? Is there another way you can word that so it doesn't seem like you are making a claim to moral objectivity? Is it bad to do it or do mean that it isn't moral behavior anymore it is something else?
Also you labelled it immorality
immorality noun: the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness.
I could see...confused or impractical as labels one is left with, for examples, without an objective morality, but not immoral and things one should do unless should is meant in the, if you want A you should do X, advice kind of way.

Or, to put this another way, when you say....

2 People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).

you mean that's what you want people to do.

In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their own moral opinions. And that isn't claiming or appealing to moral objectivity. Since there are no moral facts, the usually unspoken preface to any moral assertion is: 'In my/our opinion...'

And, in my opinion, the delusion that there are moral facts has two sources. 1 We care deeply about our moral opinions. 2 We make or apply them universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it always was and will be wrong.

Sorry if I'm missing your point.

[Iwannaplato]

In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their own moral opinions. And that isn't claiming or appealing to moral objectivity. Since there are no moral facts, the usually unspoken preface to any moral assertion is: 'In my/our opinion...'

I am not sure that saying in my opinion removes moral objectivity. It is not claiming certainty.

Aren't you really saying 'I want people to take responsibility for their moral opinions'?

What gets lost when you remove the word 'should'?

And, in my opinion, the delusion that there are moral facts has two sources. 1 We care deeply about our moral opinions. 2 We make or apply them universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to.

because we think it would be morally inconsistant, when in fact it would merely be inconsistant, from your perspective, and mine-. at least I think so regarding your position.

If there are no moral facts, isn't it better to speak in terms of desire.

To me if believe there are no moral facts, to say
It is my opinion that you are morally wrong when you X
is confused.
I just don't like when you do X.
I want a world where X isn't done as much or at all.

[Peter Holmes]

In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their own moral opinions. And that isn't claiming or appealing to moral objectivity. Since there are no moral facts, the usually unspoken preface to any moral assertion is: 'In my/our opinion...'

I am not sure that saying in my opinion removes moral objectivity. It is not claiming certainty.

Aren't you really saying 'I want people to take responsibility for their moral opinions'?

What gets lost when you remove the word 'should'?

And, in my opinion, the delusion that there are moral facts has two sources. 1 We care deeply about our moral opinions. 2 We make or apply them universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to.

because we think it would be morally inconsistant, when in fact it would merely be inconsistant, from your perspective, and mine-. at least I think so regarding your position.

If there are no moral facts, isn't it better to speak in terms of desire.

To me if believe there are no moral facts, to say
It is my opinion that you are morally wrong when you X
is confused.
I just don't like when you do X.
I want a world where X isn't done as much or at all.

I disagree. That there's no bathwater doesn't mean we have to chuck out the baby.

'I think slavery is morally wrong.' 'Why?' 'Because I don't want people to own slaves.' 'Why?' 'Erm.'

The whole point of moral discourse - why we've done and do it - is its reach beyond what anyone does or doesn't want. It's not that there are moral facts - rather that we extend our sympathy and empathy beyond our selves, and even our families and friends, in ways that benefit us individually and socially, through moral concerns.

[Immanuel Can]

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion.

It depends who's speaking. If it's just an ordinary person, right you are.

But if it's God, things are quite different. For the One who made the universe is perfectly capable of saying, and qualified to say, for what purposes He made it, what His Creation aims at, what it was created for, and what actions and attitudes are harmonious with His purposes.

In fact, nobody else really is.

We'd laugh it out of court.

Then it would be a miscarriage of justice, and we'd be proved fools. For we would then have access to the One who could actually speak authoritatively on the answer, and we'd have simply refused to listen at all.

Think about it this way.

Suppose you walk by somebody's house, and he has a huge structure on his front lawn...maybe with some beams and gears and other workings in it, but with no function you can instantly see. Who would be the person who could speak authoritatively as to why that strange structure is there?

There can be only one answer: whoever put it there. He alone can tell you why he did it. Moreover, if the strange structure actually has a function, only he can tell you what it is. And when it functions, the only person who can tell you whether it functioned rightly or wrongly is also the creator of it.

Without him, you and I are just guessing. And if the structure simply fell there by accident, we cannot even ask the question why it's there. There can be no reason.

The strange structure is the universe. If nobody put it there, it can have no function, and can't misfunction. It cannot achieve its end (telos), or fail to achieve its end, because it was not created for an end. So there is no objective morality in such a universe. It's not even possible for there to be.

But if the universe has a Creator, then He is perfectly able to say what the universe exists for, what its end (telos) is, and whether or not the things within it are functioning toward that end. He can judge its functioning perfectly, as nobody else is even capable to do.

So the question is ultimately not "Is there such a thing as objective morality," but rather, "Does the Creator exist?" The answer to that second question determines the possibility of a positive answer to the first.

Here's your argument:

This god created the universe and human beings for a purpose; therefore, acting to fulfil/thwart its purpose is morally right/wrong.

This doesn't follow.

As I said earlier, it is possible to imagine a Creator who creates and doesn't afterward care...some kind of Deism, I suppose. Though it immediately raises serious problems, it's remotely possible, I suppose. Not plausible, I think, but in extremis, possible. However, you and I are not opting for that theory.

If what you call the "Abrahamic" God exists, then it actually does follow that to contradict His purposes and nature is wrong; and He's clarified that by actually telling us it's wrong. The very definition of "wrong," (the accurate one) would be "contrary to the purposes and intentions of God, for an entity."

And describing the god's commands, nature or purposes as morally good/right doesn't fix the problem. That merely pushes the question back: there are moral facts because ... there are moral facts.

No, the moral facts are constituted into the very nature of the universe. They aren't assigned after-the-fact, as if God created things first, then scratched His head and arbitrarily assigned particular things particular values. There is, in fact, no distance between the terms, "intentions of God in creation" and "good." They are the same property: just described by two synonyms.

Theistic moral objectivism collapses in a question-begging mess.

I don't think it does. I'm not even sure what question would be left for it to "beg."

But if you can show it does, I'm interested in seeing that argument.

[Immanuel Can]

People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).[/i]

you mean that's what you want people to do.

In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their own moral opinions.

Wait.

You've just bracketed "opinion" with the term "take responsibility." That means that "taking responsibility" is a condition of having a (proper, as you see it) opinion.

But how does one judge "responsible" opinion-having, if one has no prior conception of what "responsible" entails? What are the criteria for a "responsible" opinion, in other words? And are you then not implying it's "wrong" or "bad" or negative in some way, to hold what you now call an "irresponsible" opinion?

If you mean that holding a "responsible" opinion is good, and holding an "irresponsible" one is bad, you are now making moral judgments on the holding of opinions. You've accidentally smuggled in your own moral terms, rather than describing what morality is. For you said, "morality is an opinion." Then you said, "It's bad to hold such opinions in one way (responsibly) and bad to hold them another (irresponsibly). If you believe those judgments are objectively true, you've become a moral objectivist; if you don't believe they're objectively true, then you haven't said anything at all, except, "This is my opinion about opinions."

But then it's not clear that calling a particular opinion "responsible" makes it either good or bad, and it's not clear what you were saying at all.

[Peter Holmes]

Taking responsibility for your own moral opinions doesn't mean having 'responsible opinions'. It means deciding for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong, rather than thinking that what someone else says is morally right and wrong - such as an invented god - is indeed morally right and wrong - which is a cop out.

And this isn't controversial. The claim 'this is good/right just because X says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion. We have to give other reasons for thinking something is good/right. For example, to say the subjugation of women and the persecution and murder of homosexuals and witches is morally good, simply because the invented OT god says it is - now that's a moral obscenity, in my opinion.

Now, you may disagree. But if you think the subjugation of women and the persecution and murder of homosexuals and witches is morally right or good - that's down to you. It's your moral judgement. Off-loading your responsibility for that judgement onto a morally primitive tribal god is irresponsible, in my opinion. And there are only moral opinions - no moral facts. Thank goodness.

[Immanuel Can]

Taking responsibility for your own moral opinions doesn't mean having 'responsible opinions'. It means deciding for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong,

Is it GOOD to "decide for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong"?

Is it BETTER than the alternative course?

And there are only moral opinions - no moral facts. Thank goodness.

Thank "WHAT-ness?"

You see, you can't even go a few lines without invoking moral judgments...and not just for yourself, but with the obvious implication that you think people should share your view. Otherwise, why the scorn? Why the irony, if you don't think it's obvious to everybody that you are right.

But if your view is just an "opinion," with nothing more to be added, then it's not a "good opinion" or a "bad opinion," and can't be promoted at as necessary for anybody else.

P.S. -- The cases you allege...the witches and all that...are you trying to imply that burning witches is BAD? Are you trying to say that the god you perceive to be in the OT has encouraged something that's WRONG? But how can you say that, since there is no objective "bad" or "wrong"?

It's not possible to hold the position you're advocating, it seems. Even you aren't doing it.

[DPMartin]

Of course. This is a free market of ideas. You only buy what is of value to you. As I mentioned to IC, I only write, "for those who might be interested (and it's unlikely there will be many)," because I'm not interested to changing anyone else's mind or winning any stupid debates. So it's a good thing you found out you aren't interested before you wasted any more of your time.

why of course RCSaunders, according to you its all about you what you think ought to be, correct? all should meet the RCSaunders expectations of the world around RCSaunders. because RCSaunders is in the right, just ask RCSaunders if RCSaunders is in the right, moral high ground if you're not sure.


WOW

Thanks for your comment.

your velcome, any time

i'm there for ya man

[RCSaunders]

...are you trying to imply that burning witches is BAD?...

And for anyone else who has a problem with, "profound," questions like this: For anyone who has chosen witchcraft as a lifetime profession, being burned at the stake (or any other way) is, "bad," because it really interferes with one's career.

Not only witches, but anyone who values their life, would be well-warned to evade those who cannot figure out if it is good or bad to burn others.

[Iwannaplato]

The whole point of moral discourse - why we've done and do it - is its reach beyond what anyone does or doesn't want. It's not that there are moral facts - rather that we extend our sympathy and empathy beyond our selves, and even our families and friends, in ways that benefit us individually and socially, through moral concerns.

I feel empathy for other people. I don't really know what you are talking about. I get upset emotionally by cruelty, cruelty aimed at people I know and people I don't know. Nothing I said implied that empathy, which I think is always conceived of as relating to people other than oneself, is off limits or not part of what I decide I want.

Further what you argue as the whole point of moral discourse is precisely universalizing your outlook on morality. You say 'we' but really it is a (yes, large) subset of 'we' if 'we' means humans. Now, your morality fits (at this level of abstraction) with my wants and yearnings. But others have moralities that, for example, emphasize the value of achieving individual greatness, with little concern for how this plays out for the weak, for example. By putting those moral/value systems outside of morality, you are doing precisely what moral objectivists do.

Do you need a morality to care about people beyond your family or to desire a world where care for others and preventable suffering are prioritized? I don't.

Also it seems like there is an implicit ad populum arguement in 'the whole point of morality' and an implicit is to ought. Sure most have viewed moral discourse that way, but what does that entail? Is it wrong not to?

[Immanuel Can]

...are you trying to imply that burning witches is BAD?...

And for anyone else who has a problem with, "profound," questions like this: For anyone who has chosen witchcraft as a lifetime profession, being burned at the stake (or any other way) is, "bad," because it really interferes with one's career.

Oh. So you mean "Practically bad for the witches' plans, but unobjectionable in view of anybody else?"

Not only witches, but anyone who values their life, would be well-warned to evade those who cannot figure out if it is good or bad to burn others.

Well, right now, that would be you. Because you have, perhaps, strictly abitrary and personal inclinations for disliking it, if somebody decided to do it, you'd have no reason to stop them. It's not actually bad, according to you, except if you are the witch yourself, and then only because it ruins the ol' chances of a Christmas bonus from the coven.

[Peter Holmes]

Taking responsibility for your own moral opinions doesn't mean having 'responsible opinions'. It means deciding for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong,

Is it GOOD to "decide for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong"?

Is it BETTER than the alternative course?

And there are only moral opinions - no moral facts. Thank goodness.

Thank "WHAT-ness?"

You see, you can't even go a few lines without invoking moral judgments...and not just for yourself, but with the obvious implication that you think people should share your view. Otherwise, why the scorn? Why the irony, if you don't think it's obvious to everybody that you are right.

But if your view is just an "opinion," with nothing more to be added, then it's not a "good opinion" or a "bad opinion," and can't be promoted at as necessary for anybody else.

P.S. -- The cases you allege...the witches and all that...are you trying to imply that burning witches is BAD? Are you trying to say that the god you perceive to be in the OT has encouraged something that's WRONG? But how can you say that, since there is no objective "bad" or "wrong"?

It's not possible to hold the position you're advocating, it seems. Even you aren't doing it.

Here's your argument. Have a good, long, careful think about it. Perhaps you can see the non sequitur.

'If there are no moral facts, nothing is, or can be said to be, morally right or wrong.'

[Immanuel Can]

Taking responsibility for your own moral opinions doesn't mean having 'responsible opinions'. It means deciding for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong,

Is it GOOD to "decide for yourself what you think is morally right and wrong"?

Is it BETTER than the alternative course?

And there are only moral opinions - no moral facts. Thank goodness.

Thank "WHAT-ness?"

You see, you can't even go a few lines without invoking moral judgments...and not just for yourself, but with the obvious implication that you think people should share your view. Otherwise, why the scorn? Why the irony, if you don't think it's obvious to everybody that you are right.

But if your view is just an "opinion," with nothing more to be added, then it's not a "good opinion" or a "bad opinion," and can't be promoted at as necessary for anybody else.

P.S. -- The cases you allege...the witches and all that...are you trying to imply that burning witches is BAD? Are you trying to say that the god you perceive to be in the OT has encouraged something that's WRONG? But how can you say that, since there is no objective "bad" or "wrong"?

It's not possible to hold the position you're advocating, it seems. Even you aren't doing it.

Here's your argument. Have a good, long, careful think about it. Perhaps you can see the non sequitur.

Nope.

You'll have to help me out.

'If there are no moral facts, nothing is, or can be said to be, morally right or wrong.'

Well, you could play around with the words, "can be said," but what I really meant by the phrase was "can be justly or rightly said." But that's a mere matter of ambiguity, not a non-sequitur. One can "say" many things that are not true.

But it doesn't seem obvious to me you'd take such a trivial issue with the claim, which is otherwise obviously correct. So maybe you can spell it out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'If there are no moral facts, nothing is, or can be said to be, morally right or wrong.'

Your understanding of what is fact and reality is outdated. You have this 'analytical' arrogance that you are a philosophical-KING and everyone's ideas other than yours is wrong.

Whatever you are postulating is based on the Linguistic FSK which is useless unless linked to some more credible FSK.

The most credible facts we have at present are those from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As long as there is a FSK what is true or false is conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Note the true or false of the Scientific FSK which is based on Model Dependent Realism, i.e.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.

Therefore whatever is true or false is always relative to the scientific model, i.e. the FSK. As such, the claim that God Exists as Real is false within the Scientific FSK.

Moral facts are thus those are are verifiable and justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral FSK. As such there are moral facts conditioned upon its Moral FSK.

There is the Christianity Moral FSK and whatever is justified within the Christianity Moral FSK are true moral facts as qualified.
Whilst there are Christian Moral Facts [as argued] these facts [conditional] are not credible [say 5-10/100] relative to scientific facts [50-80/100] because the Christianity Moral FSK is grounded on an illusory God is not credible.

Therefore it is philosophically irrational for you to generalize there are ABSOLUTELY [without qualifications] no moral facts.

[RCSaunders]

Theistic moral objectivism collapses in a question-begging mess.

I don't think it does. I'm not even sure what question would be left for it to "beg."

Peter's right.

Does no one on this forum, besides Peter and I, understand what "question-begging" means. It has nothing to do with asking questions, or, "begging," for answers. It's an informal fallacy that assume the conclusion in one of the premises of an argument. That is exactly what Christian morality does. It assume morality just is, then bases its entire argument on that assumption.