by whereami 161 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
so the most basic things one need to demonstrate for the argument to hold any water:
Bin Laden was a rabid dog. He's not like the innocent guy standing near a train track. Would a person, no matter what their morality is based on, push a man on the tracks to stop a train and save 5 lives? Probably NOT. Why, because well-being is measured in much more than loss of life. Well-being also considers quality of life. Are we the kind of people that willingly sacrifices an innocent for the sake of other innocents? In one act? I don't think so---that would not be good for the overall well-being of all.
This study and argument are a bit ridiculous because it takes into account only 2 or possibly 3 factors. It does not take into account the complexity of us as people, and the millions of things we consider when making decisions. Program a computer with the tiny sliver of what was considered in this study, and you'll get the same answer as humans filling out a survey will say. In real life though---when all other factors come into play---well we don't see people throwing innocents onto railroad tracks.
Then we have to change the context--another boatload of variables are introduced. Move the decision from the rr tracks and put it in the context of war! Then we see many people---many god fearing people kissing crosses and holding government issued bibles for luck---killing innocents in their beds. This study is so flawed, I don't even know how we can even argue it.
NC
I just want to repeat my challenge to those who reject morality without god.
Please tell me a moral statement that isn't predicated on the well being of conscious creatures.
good one cofty! Never heard the question posed that way before.
PS Sacramento -
You say if a society believes that infanticide is good for society it is not immoral. The Jewish law from God prescribed the DEATH penalty for disobedient children. Elijah actually condemned cheeky children to death by Bears, to teach respect for the old - a very societally beneficial ideal.
Of course, according to the Bible, God actually commanded GENOCIDE for the good of jewish society.
Since the jews believed this was good and ordained by God, it was not immoral.
The Bible makes these things so clear doesnt it?
Even cofty is backed up by scripture, that shows this genocide was for the well being of conscious creatures who willingly did the slaughter.
HB
ANY fool can see that the gods of China and India taught their followers good morals long before the jewish god.
The jews were wandering about for years before YHWH took Moses up a mountain, and explained that lying stealing incest murder adultery and blasphemy (at least against HIM) were wrong.
So there can certainly be morality without believing in the Johnny- come- lately god of the Bible.
if the gods of these other peoples dont exist where did they get their morality from?
HB
Interesting...
Since nobody seems intersted in the challenge...
Please tell me a moral statement that isn't predicated on the well being of conscious creatures...
I would like to expand on the thought myself.
As a former beleiver I used to imagine that my moral actions were based soley on my desire to please god by obeying his commnads rather than any self interest. Of course this was a delusion.
When we think about a moral statement like "do not steal" it isn't hard to see that it is predicated on human well being. Theft may benefit the thief but only until he in turn becomes a victim of another thief - or gets caught. If a society was possible where everybody repsected the property rights of everybody else that would be conducive to the well being of the maximum number of people.
On the other hand a statement like "do not make garmets form two different types of cloth" seems impossible to understand in terms of the well being of conscious creatures. Perhaps the faithful can really imagine that such commands give them the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to god for its own sake. I recently heard a Rabbi explain Jewish law in exactly these terms.
This is where believers delude themselves by ignoring the promises and warnings that go along with divine commands. If denying yourself temporary benefits will result in long term rewards then the motivation for the law is still the well being of conscious craatures. All we have done is to move the temporal element of the well being.
Imagine if god said that he only wanted people to obey his moral laws because he was god and for no ulterior motive so he had changed the deal. Those who kept his laws would be eternally miserable in the afterlife and those who disregarded his laws in this life woud live in eternal bliss. Show me the believer who would continue to follow god.
All moral statements are about the well being of conscious creatures. If you can think of any that are not you have managed to discover the least interesting thought possible.
Please tell me a moral statement that isn't predicated on the well being of conscious creatures.
Please tell me a moral statement that isn't predicated on the well being of conscious creatures.
Not sure if I understand what you are asking...
"moral statement"?
Can you define "well being of conscious creatures"?
Last page someone said that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was moral because the well being of most people benefited from it.
I have to say that I disagree with that premise. Numbers doesn't make something a moral act. Murdering innocent people, no matter how many other innocents benefited from that act, is an immoral act. Sometimes - sometimes - the immoral act can be understood and justified. But it is still an immoral act. And murdering innocents is still an immoral act, no matter who or how many benefited from it.
Society changes what is acceptable, but I don't think core morals change. Causing harm to others is immoral. (deliberate harm, at least - accidental harm is a different matter, but even accidental harm has a duty to make amends)
Now, can a person be moral without God? Yes, I believe so. Morals stem from love (though we don't always know what love is, and so that can mess up our choices based on love - for me, Christ shows me what love is). But some have this law of love already written on their hearts - naturally. So those people can be moral, with or without God.
Did God provide the foundation of that love - I have to say yes, because God IS love, and if our creator is love, then we should have a grasp of love, at least.
But for the purpose of people right now who do not believe in God, then yes, they can be moral 'by nature'.
Cofty are you talking about individual well-being, or societal well-being? Because they're not always the same.
Peace,
Tammy
