Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Can we agree that even if it is based on the bible that having murder be illegal is a good thing?

[Rolan7]

Can we agree that even if it is based on the bible that having murder be illegal is a good thing?

Of course!  Just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it wrong.

Disallowing murder is a bit of a tautology, though.  Murder is literally killing without a good cause.  Any culture that understand the concept will, by definition, agree that murder must be prevented.  And to my knowledge no culture has survived to the present day without classifying and working to prevent murder.  Even isolated tribes.

The hilarious thing is that the King James translates it as "Thou shalt not kill"...  Which, instead of being obviously right, is obviously wrong.  Both an inaccurate translation, and an impossible rule to maintain a culture under.  At least with current technology.

[TD1]

So, new topic being taught in school: Divine Command Ethics.

The basic question is "Does God command that which is right, or is that which is right what God commands." Basically, fits in with the conversation that was going on. So, my question to all ye believers is whether or not you think morals absolutely have to come from God, and whether, if they do, they are truly absolute. I keep being told that Divine Command Ethicists use the absolutist approach, but it strikes me that if it were absolute then, to use Christianity as an example, it shouldn't change/alter between the old and new testament.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Ya morals are absolute
Murder will never be ok

[MonkeyHead]

Ya morals are absolute
Murder will never be ok

Playing devils advocate here a little...

What if it could lead to the greater good? Say, I don't know, killing someone would protect the life of 3 innocent kids and prevent them getting killed?

Oh, and a second devils advocate question that anyone who considers morals to stem from godhead and to be absolute: Could you kill me if your god commanded it? Gods have done so according to holy books, after all.


Finally, a far more straight forwards question where I am genuinely curious rather than advocating for the hypothetical evil one: If morals are absolute and stem from godhead, why do the absolute morals we are "required" to follow seem to differ so much from the ones that gods apparently exhibit in the various holy books? Wiping out humanity seems like an act of murder to me.

Some really good rationally sceptical reading material (warning, might offend the more faithful amongst you by directly challenging articles of faith) on this matter here: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Morality and http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument

[TD1]

Not specifically talking about murder. There are plenty of examples showing morals changing depending upon culture, and even murder is seen as okay in the context of battle or defense of one's life. Plus, how are absolute morals reconciled with the seeming change in moral thought seen between the old and new testament?

Ya morals are absolute
Murder will never be ok

Playing devils advocate here a little...

What if it could lead to the greater good? Say, I don't know, killing someone would protect the life of 3 innocent kids?

Not that I know, but his argument may well be that the three kids will be going to God anyway, so it's best to let them die.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

It's never right to do wrong to do right
Killing someone without reason is not ok
If it's in defense of your life I believe you have reason, if it's in defense of others it's ok too.
It is MURDER that is not ok, murder is killing without reason not killing in general.

[TD1]

So we should be vegetarians? When we step on an insect, it is morally wrong?

Or are morals limited only to humans?

Should we not cut down trees? Pick flowers?


Edit: Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.

Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

.....?
I thought it was just about humans in the first place?
Killing animals for food= ok
Killing animals for enjoyment of tourmenting them= not ok

[MonkeyHead]

It's never right to do wrong to do right

Another hypothetical just so I can understand your way of thinking a little better. Lets imagine you had been shot, and would bleed to death unless I get you to hospital. Circumstances dictate that I can steal a car (wrong), to save your life (right) by getting you to medical assistance. Would you be against me stealing the car to get you to the hospital? As someone who has a hard time understanding the concept of absolute morality, I see nothing wrong at all with doing so - "greater good" rather than "nose off to spite face", so to speak. I just can not see this as a binary thing.

[TD1]

Picking a flower is murdering the flower. Absolute laws decree that they are relevant for all things, unless you wish to say they're actually subjective in that they only apply to some life forms. Also, my edit of my previous post:

Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.

Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Are you going to return the car or even attempt to ask the owner for assistance?

Picking a flower is murdering the flower. Absolute laws decree that they are relevant for all things, unless you wish to say they're actually subjective in that they only apply to some life forms. Also, my edit of my previous post:

Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.

Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."

Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?
And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants, and if we are going to get into a conversation on the civil rights of flowers I will show myself to the door.

[MonkeyHead]

Are you going to return the car or even attempt to ask the owner for assistance?

Picking a flower is murdering the flower. Absolute laws decree that they are relevant for all things, unless you wish to say they're actually subjective in that they only apply to some life forms. Also, my edit of my previous post:

Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.

Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."

Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?
And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants, and if we are going to get into a conversation on the civil rights of flowers I will show myself to the door.

Of course I would return the car. I would even clean your blood off it. I am not a monster! . The owner is not around. The circumstance is this: theft (wrong, justifiable?) to save life (right), or no theft (right) to leave you die (wrong?). Yeah, I know, extreme example, but it is the fringes where I see absolute morality as failing - like any catch all system. I could not leave you die. My internal moral scales would not balance out theft as more signifigant than letting someone die. Boom. Moral relativism.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Ya it would be ok to take the car as long as you or I pay for any damage and clean up the mess.
Just stealing the car and keeping it isn't ok though.

[TD1]

And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants

No, I don't believe humans count much, they are humans.

Assuming you are correct in saying God exists, then we are like a grain of sand beside ten Everests, one on top of the other. Why would God not love the plant as much as the human? Does he not love all things? Is his omnibenevolent, or all loving, nature in itself subjective?

Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?

That's your line.

The serial killer, whilst in the minority of the human population, thinks it's perfectly moral. The person who kills people for money has a reason, too. In fact, morals only look more subjective the more you realise how much they differ from person to person. A serial killer is just an extreme example.

Also, I'm interested in your answer to this:

Plus, how are absolute morals reconciled with the seeming change in moral thought seen between the old and new testament?