Philosophy Now Forum

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

Is objectivity superior to God?

The questioner needs to define for us what he means by 'moral fact' before we can answer.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:22 pm We however know that there is no moral fact.

Do we?

How do "we know" that?

Bro you can't aks that because you don't even know what bahman means by that phrase yet.

See this is exactly what Wittgenstein was talking about. Well not exactly, but somewhat.

Actually I'm not even sure if he talked about it somewhat. Alls I'm saying is that he should have if he didn't.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:11 pm Is objectivity superior to God?

They are two different things. Something objective is a thing that is true so all intelligent beings can agree with it. God is the creator of everything.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:41 am The questioner needs to define for us what he means by 'moral fact' before we can answer.

Moral facts are a set of principles that rightness or wrongness an action can be derived from them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:59 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:22 pm We however know that there is no moral fact.

Do we?

How do "we know" that?

You are a religious person. So tell me an instance of a moral fact that can be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:59 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:22 pm We however know that there is no moral fact.

Do we?

How do "we know" that?

You are a religious person. So tell me an instance of a moral fact that can be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Let's say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That's one of the Ten Commandments, so it should furnish a good example.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:59 am
Do we?

How do "we know" that?

You are a religious person. So tell me an instance of a moral fact that can be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Let's say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That's one of the Ten Commandments, so it should furnish a good example.

That is a moral act that is different from moral fact. Moral facts are a set of principles that rightness or wrongness an action can be derived from them.

no man, that's just a religious concept, an institution, originating out of a social convention... the monogamous behavior of human beings.

so of course the ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy) of the union of male and female to reproduce, is going to be the model presented and codified by Christianity. they were a monogamous culture, and so were the societies and civilizations that have existed since. so the Bible's not gonna portray Adam and Eve as a couple of swingers.

so then 'adultery' is the violation of the rules of that monogamous convention. Shirley not the edict of some cosmic marriage counselor.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:21 pm
You are a religious person. So tell me an instance of a moral fact that can be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Let's say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That's one of the Ten Commandments, so it should furnish a good example.

That is a moral act that is different from moral fact. Moral facts are a set of principles that rightness or wrongness an action can be derived from them.

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

I'm not seeing your problem, I guess.

If God exists, I don't think He'd like us to follow the crowd for the sake of following the crowd.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:42 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:35 pm
Let's say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That's one of the Ten Commandments, so it should furnish a good example.

That is a moral act that is different from moral fact. Moral facts are a set of principles that rightness or wrongness an action can be derived from them.

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

I'm not seeing your problem, I guess.

I just see that you are stressing on the moral act. I am asking what is the fact. I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right. So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong? All I am seeing now is that adultery is wrong because it is wrong.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:58 pm I just see that you are stressing on the moral act. I am asking what is the fact. I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right. So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong? All I am seeing now is that adultery is wrong because it is wrong.

You mean something other than 'moral facts'. He gave you a perfectly good example of what is considered a moral fact or a purported moral fact. (iow someone might disagree) What you want is justification for why adultery is not good. But if you believe in God and this includes a belief in scripture or other sources of moral facts, then it can resolve moral conflict between those who believe in the same scripture. (though not always). I think you've formulated the title of the thread wrong and also are not using moral facts correctly as a term. The issue is a good one underneath all that.

What if the theist uses a parent child analogy? That one should trust the parent, even if you can't see the justification. I mean, most parents will justify, except perhaps with the youngest children. But they are the experts, at least in theory. When you are 18 we can revisit this discussion and I think then you will be able to understand why I consider this bad. For now, it's off limits.