Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Robert]

1 Chronicles 10:1 The Philistines fought a battle against the Israelites on Mount Gilboa. Many Israelites were killed there, and the rest of them, including King Saul and his sons, fled. 2 But the Philistines caught up with them and killed three of Saul's sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua. 3 The fighting was heavy around Saul, and he was hit by enemy arrows and badly wounded. 4 He [saul] said to the young man carrying his weapons, "Draw your sword and kill me, to keep these godless Philistines from gloating over me." But the young man was too terrified to do it. [size:20pt]So Saul took his own sword and threw himself on it. 5 The young man saw that Saul was dead, so he too threw himself on his sword and died. 6 So Saul and his three sons all died together, and none of his descendants ever ruled. 7 When the Israelites who lived in Jezreel Valley heard that the army had fled and that Saul and his sons had died, they abandoned their towns and ran off. Then the Philistines came and occupied them.

8 The day after the battle the Philistines went to plunder the corpses, and they found the bodies of Saul and his sons lying on Mount Gilboa. 9 They cut off Saul's head, stripped off his armor, and sent messengers with them throughout Philistia to tell the good news to their idols and to their people. 10 They put his weapons in one of their temples and hung his head in the temple of their god Dagon. 11 When the people of Jabesh in Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 the bravest men went and got the bodies of Saul and his sons and took them to Jabesh. They buried them there under an oak and fasted for seven days. 13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord. He disobeyed the Lord's commands; he tried to find guidance by consulting the spirits of the dead 14 instead of consulting the Lord. So the Lord killed him and gave control of the kingdom to David son of Jesse.

"So Saul took his own sword and threw himself on it" [verse 4]

"So the Lord killed him" [verse 14]

Yes?

[cardw]

Quote:

Your so-called morality is a hodge-podge appetites, wishes, and stratagems. The only thing lacking is-- a moral framework itself.

My position is basically that there are no moral frameworks. I would hope that you would see this.

To demonstrate, let me challenge you to state a basis for a moral framework other than authority and we'll see how quickly you have to appeal to some subjective awareness.

[Gerr]

My position is basically that there are no moral frameworks. I would hope that you would see this.

Aha! Just like I said in the beginning. Without a Supreme authority, there can be no real basis for morality or ethics. Everyman for himself. The strongest rules. Chaos. Just like in the beginning, morality and ethics was "without form and void. And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

[fccool]

I'm not sure what you are trying to point to by showing this discrepancy, but can it be both? When God says .... "Kill all the pregnant women and children and no one should be left alive".... are people who do the work are to blame for the killing. Of course not. I'm not trying to argue the point that God is somehow unfair. But I do try to argue that he is the ultimate initiator of events in the world of cause and effects. If he is the ultimate uncaused, and we are caused and our "choice" depend on the environment that is created... it means that environment has much to do with our choices. YES?

[Robert]

I'm not sure what you are trying to point to by showing this discrepancy, but can it be both? When God says .... "Kill all the pregnant women..."

I'm sorry, did you say something? No? Back to the context. I will not let you simply dismiss it like that. In fact I'll give you another one:

Ex 9:12 "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh"

Ex 8:32 "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go."

Wiggle out of that one!

[Robert]

Logically, the Creator is responsible for the creature.

The creator, created us perfect "in Adam"! Lucifer is the one that caused the fall and perverted this world with his principle of self-love. You can't blame God! However, since God gave Lucifer the opportunity to develop his type of love, God assumes the blame until "iniquity" is fully exposed. Comprehend?

Rob

[there buster]

Quote:

My position is basically that there are no moral frameworks.

Yet you make moral judgments. Such must be made on some basis.

[Bravus]

Gerry - Richard's position is not everyone's position, and his claim that there are no moral frameworks is not evidence that there are no moral frameworks. Sorry, it ain't that easy!

The 'the Bible is not entirely consistent' arguments seem like a distraction at this point from the main stream of the discussion.

Shane, say we posit that we do believe in the authority of the Bible on moral matters. I'm still waiting to hear more details of how such a framework is derived and developed. Here's a common example: should someone steal medicine in order to stop someone dying. What does a Biblical moral framework say about such a hypothetical?

[Gerr]

Gerry - Richard's position is not everyone's position, and his claim that there are no moral frameworks is not evidence that there are no moral frameworks. Sorry, it ain't that easy!

Well, people can get together and agree on some moral framework. And it will work as long as everyone abides by it. But as soon as someone disagrees with the standard, we're back to square one. By whose authority is this binding one the one who disagrees with the standard? And we're back to the same answers. It's right or it's wrong because WE say so. Or "it's always been done this way (tradition)". Or "God said so."

Quote:

Shane, say we posit that we do believe in the authority of the Bible on moral matters. I'm still waiting to hear more details of how such a framework is derived and developed. Here's a common example: should someone steal medicine in order to stop someone dying. What does a Biblical moral framework say about such a hypothetical?

How did the Biblical framework develop? Well, Moses claimed that God Himself wrote the basic framework [the 10c] from which all the other laws were only commentaries, explanations, and elaboration of those basic principles.

If I recall correctly, Hammurabi made the same claim, that the code he handed down was from the divine.

Most of the ancient nations claimed divine source for their moral framework.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

I'm not sure what you are trying to point to by showing this discrepancy, but can it be both? When God says .... "Kill all the pregnant women..."

I'm sorry, did you say something? No? Back to the context. I will not let you simply dismiss it like that. In fact I'll give you another one:

Ex 9:12 "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh"

Ex 8:32 "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go."

Wiggle out of that one!

Hmm... no reason to wiggle, and no reason to dig yourself into a deeper hole either.

21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

God is speaking this time... First person. Would you like to put different words in mouth of God just because you think it's somehow "unfair" for Him to carry out His plan? The free will apologetics would like to say that by "I will harden his heart" God really meant "I will let him harden his own heart"... like a clay that you leave to harden untouched. God is active participant through history.

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

You can't separate the "acts of divine justice" as they are called, from the acts of divine planning. God has provided the circumstances and occasion for both the Pharaoh and the blind man to be what they are... and THEY MADE THE CHOICE. That's why the perceived discrepancy. The determinism is not inconsistent with choice, but initiators of the choice are bound by the circumstances that direct their choices which could be no other choice that they would make.

Thus you will have both Pharaoh hardening his heart by making a choice that he could not avoid making given his background and circumstances, and God hardening Pharaoh's heart by providing these circumstances. Pharaoh could not have made any other choices and catch God off guard.

That's why in the context of the subject that you are addressing Paul states:

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy

and then follows that thought up with:

2What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.

Your turn.

[fccool]

And that brings me to a very important point/question. How does God know future? Is it some kind of magic mirror that tells Him what is coming next, or is it His complete control over history of the Universe.

If I say this book will be moved tomorrow at 5:32 p.m. and I come and move it... I predicted the future. How do you think God does it? But you already know what I'm going to say (a quote from the Matrix

[cardw]

Quote:

My position is basically that there are no moral frameworks.

Yet you make moral judgments. Such must be made on some basis.

Well, you obviously can't understand my position.

I suggest that you accept my challenge and give me any basis for morality that does not rely on authority. Then you may begin to understand why the existence of morality is as difficult to prove as the existence of god.

Everybody talks as if morality is some how out there.

I agree with Bravus in that this is really a sidetrack or red herring that would be used in some sort of debate challenge.

When I speak of moral issues its generally referring to general accepted norms within society and in some cases "Natural Philosophy." Either way its subjective, not objective morality.

Subjective foundations are simply preferences based on other preferences based on outcomes, pleasure, and whole host of self preservational fears. Mine tend to be based on favorable outcomes for myself and others in my own estimation because that is all any of us has.

[cardw]

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The problem is that there is no evidence from any rational comparison that the 10 commandments are superior to any other. Hence we don't have a Supreme authority that trumps all others.

It is the ultimate standard, so you can't compare it to any other. On the contrary, all other standards are compared to it!

Quote:

Amazingly even atheists generally don't believe in everyman for himself/herself since this is not wise. It doesn't produce the most favorable results for any concerned. That is why secular philosophers developed democracy.

And when you look at the lives of atheists they have less chaos in their lives than believers since their divorce rate is lower, they are less violent, and they are more educated.

If morality is such a great thing, then why doesn't it give believers better results?

[/quote']

Well, think this through. If you were the devil and you want to promote atheism, would you make the lives of atheists difficult? NO!!! If I were the devil, I'd make them prosperous, have an easier life and a paragon of virtue!!! And make Christians as divided, miserable, and us undesirable as possible!!!

[there buster]

Quote:

Well, you obviously can't understand my position.

I understand that it is incoherent.

You make moral judgments, such as whether one system is "superior" to another, yet claim there are none. Yet "superior" in this context is a moral claim.

Quote:

I suggest that you accept my challenge and give me any basis for morality that does not rely on authority.

I suggest you explain on what basis you decide if one system is "superior" to another.

Quote:

agree with Bravus in that this is really a sidetrack or red herring

No, he was talking about whether the Bible is consistent being a sidetrack. I am not discussing that.

I am trying to get at the wonder of someone who claims there are no moral frameworks, and then makes moral judgments.

[there buster]

Quote:

And when you look at the lives of atheists they have less chaos in their lives than believers since their divorce rate is lower, they are less violent, and they are more educated.

Is that "better"?

[Dr. Shane]

Here's a common example: should someone steal medicine in order to stop someone dying. What does a Biblical moral framework say about such a hypothetical?

I think Prob. 6:30 applies to that. Some may disagree but if it is alright to steal food to satisfy hunger certainly stealing medicine to treat illness would be acceptable.

"Men do not despise a thief if he steals To satisfy himself when he is hungry" (Prov. 6:30)

[cardw]

Quote:

I understand that it is incoherent.

It obvious that its incoherent to you.

Quote:

You make moral judgments, such as whether one system is "superior" to another, yet claim there are none. Yet "superior" in this context is a moral claim.

Its moral in the context of who I am talking to. If someone claims that they follow a god who has rules they consider to be moral then if that god breaks those rules, within the context of their belief in morality there are inferior and superior belief systems.

I have told you the basis of what I determine is better or worse, but you continue to ignore that criteria and you offer no alternate solution but seem satisfied in debating definitions.

Quote:

I suggest you explain on what basis you decide if one system is "superior" to another.

I have told you on what basis. You may not accept that basis, but under current dialog there appears to be no rational basis other than force, but that is not what we observe in the world because people are motivated by other things than fear.

I don't believe anyone is going to come up with a rational basis for motivation. That only exists within the subjective realm and its a waste of time debating the logic of subjective experiences.

Quote:

I am trying to get at the wonder of someone who claims there are no moral frameworks, and then makes moral judgments.

No you are hiding behind a "one tune" game of debating definitions. You make no claims of any position that I can see so far, so you, just as everyone else, has no basis for any universal moral claims either.

Just so that I am as clear as I can be. As I said in the beginning, when I talk of morals it is in the CONTEXT of the moral beliefs of the person I am talking with.

If you don't understand that then I give up.

[cardw]

Quote:

Well, think this through. If you were the devil and you want to promote atheism, would you make the lives of atheists difficult? NO!!! If I were the devil, I'd make them prosperous, have an easier life and a paragon of virtue!!! And make Christians as divided, miserable, and us undesirable as possible!!!

Well, to me that is just paranoia. If the devil can do that there is no rational basis to determine within your value system what is better or worse.

And this is simply not true. Atheists face the same life struggles as believers, it just happens that they work through them with a different set of tools. And yet even though they face the same things they have different outcomes than believers.

[there buster]

Quote:

You make no claims of any position that I can see so far, so you, just as everyone else, has no basis for any universal moral claims either.

Just so that I am as clear as I can be. As I said in the beginning, when I talk of morals it is in the CONTEXT of the moral beliefs of the person I am talking with.

If you are talking in the context of my moral beliefs, then you must know what they are. If that's the case, then you don't need me to tell you what they are.

On the other hand, if you do not know what my beliefs are concerning morals, then you would have no basis --according to your approach-- of making moral statements to me.

That leaves you in an unusual position:

cardw makes moral statements in the context of the person he's talking to.

He's talking to me.

He does not know what my moral beliefs are.

So his moral statements to me are made in the context of what he does not know.

And yet, and yet, you persist in using value-laden terms such as "superior."

[Gerr]

Quote:

Well, think this through. If you were the devil and you want to promote atheism, would you make the lives of atheists difficult? NO!!! If I were the devil, I'd make them prosperous, have an easier life and a paragon of virtue!!! And make Christians as divided, miserable, and us undesirable as possible!!!

Well, to me that is just paranoia. If the devil can do that there is no rational basis to determine within your value system what is better or worse.

And this is simply not true. Atheists face the same life struggles as believers, it just happens that they work through them with a different set of tools. And yet even though they face the same things they have different outcomes than believers.

Just paranoia? IF there is devil (and I am quite certain he exists), then from my wouldn't it be very logical?

[Robert]

21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

[cardw]

Quote:

If you are talking in the context of my moral beliefs, then you must know what they are. If that's the case, then you don't need me to tell you what they are.

No kidding...

Look, the context that you brought was quotes from my conversations with those who take the bible literally. That's the context. You seem to get lost when it comes to context.

I wouldn't be asking your beliefs unless I didn't know them. So its implied that I am not comparing my beliefs with yours.

As far as I know I haven't claimed that my moral beliefs are greater than yours, so we haven't established a context within your beliefs. That seems obvious to me.

I doubt we are going to get anything in regard to your own beliefs.

[cardw]

Quote:

Just paranoia? IF there is devil (and I am quite certain he exists), then from my wouldn't it be very logical?

Well, you haven't established that atheists have it easier. I only said, given the same circumstances, atheists are less violent, have fewer divorces, and are better educated.

[Taylor]

Right!