Justice...what justice

[Esanta]

You can put a stake in the moral high ground but it doesn't mean anything and it doesn't change the fact that Islam wants to come to my town and kill me and convert me. If the truth be told, I'm of the George Washington perspective in that he advised to avoid foreign entanglements. I wish we kick the environmentalists here to the curb, drill our own oil, grow our own food and pull out of that cesspool of fundamentalism in the Middle East.....but unfortunately we have been taken over by the almighty corporate interest. You are far more right in your own eyes than I will ever be in mine.

You can't honestly think I'm taking the moral high-ground by trying to get across that two 'sides' striking one another while expecting not to be stricken back is like shaking a wasps nest and expecting not to get stung. It's also quite paradoxical to say you're like George Washington, in that you would rather people didn't get involved in foreign affairs yet you advocate 'pulling out that cesspool of fundamentalism in the middle east', and likewise in saying you think America should 'kick the environmentalists to the curb and drill our own oil' and then saying 'we have been taken over by the corporate interest'.

The biggest corporate interest of present USA is oil in the Middle East, something environmentalists oppose.

 

[Esanta]

The majority of europe is against Israel.

Bigotry.

That does not make Israel wrong. Its perfect proof that socialism promotes hatred and bigotry.

Hard to find a conservative in europe and its hard to find christians too. It goes hand in hand with socialism, hatred of christians and jews.

The facts support Israel to the point that any other consideration is pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.

The good thing about this entire conflict is that bigots are being defined and exposed.

The majority of Europeans are against unjust war. If you'd asked the UK, France and other European nations tied to NATO for national referenda before Iraq and Afghanistan, I can guarantee you that we would never have invaded.

 

[Sirk]

You can't honestly think I'm taking the moral high-ground by trying to get across that two 'sides' striking one another while expecting not to be stricken back is like shaking a wasps nest and expecting not to get stung. It's also quite paradoxical to say you're like George Washington, in that you would rather people didn't get involved in foreign affairs yet you advocate 'pulling out that cesspool of fundamentalism in the middle east', and likewise in saying you think America should 'kick the environmentalists to the curb and drill our own oil' and then saying 'we have been taken over by the corporate interest'.

The biggest corporate interest of present USA is oil in the Middle East.

I guess your understanding of my post is lacking. Oh well. You display the typical liberal, blame the other side what you are guilty of yourself. It's a good tactic and it's worked for a few decades but it's power is fading.

 

[Esanta]

I guess your understanding of my post is lacking. Oh well. You display the typical liberal, blame the other side what you are guilty of yourself. It's a good tactic and it's worked for a few decades but it's power is fading.

I don't even know what this is supposed to represent. It's just jibberish.

 

[Sirk]

I don't even know what this is supposed to represent. It's just jibberish.

Ya....didn't expect to you too.

 

[Pottyone]

Again, you are the one requiring originating external justification for justice - you ask 'who made it', and without an answer to that question you consider justice unjustified, which itself is an oxymoron, and a problem that you and I do not share.

If we say 'the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that molecular mutations give either advantage or disadvantage to the survival of an organism' it is simply an explanation of the physical properties developing in species. Of course that does not adequately explain the concept of justice for you but then you are the person looking to the physical mechanics of the development of cells for justification for morality, which is in itself dependent on cognitive factors rather than strictly physical factors.

Guilt for a physical act exists. That is my position. We are beings of senses - sight, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, all controlled by cognition, and a foul odour offends the senses much like a foul act offends them.

Tell me, without the knowledge of God, as a young child, would you find the image of a woman lying dead with severed limbs offensive? I would, and the reason for that is because I imagine myself in another human being's shoes.

Is it not justifiable to find atrocity offensive naturally? Or are only those who require an originating source for moral justification, morally justified? Is a young child for instance, not understanding God, unjustified in finding such scenery offensive? Of course not.

Morality does not come about naturally by following external rules and laws, morality comes naturally by observing a complex interdependent world of circumstance, cause and effect and asking questions of oneself. If an external source says to you, 'stone that woman to death, it is the moral law', do you simply agree with that command's moral validity or do you question it with your own empathetic sensibilities? Do you not ask, 'does the crime justify the punishment?' And 'is violence a solution to the problem?' And 'is the cause's effect the only viable outcome?' And 'can I take another human life?' And 'is stoning not painful?' And 'how would I feel in that woman's shoes?' And 'is there a solution that better remedies this situation?' And 'what good comes from stoning this woman?' You say you follow and inescapable, totally objective moral code, a deontological morality, but you don't really, because totally objective, universal commands don't exist for every situation a Christian finds themselves in, thus some Christians respond differently to certain circumstance than others. So even if a complete deontological moral code does exist, it is not in full effect nor in unanimous consensus. And I don't believe that it can be, certainly not presently.

Morality, at least for me, comes from mindful, observant examination of my motives, and from a sense that my own motives, thoughts and actions are the only motives, thoughts and actions which I am in full control of. My conclusion is, I will not stone the woman, because;

1. I am not her, and thus I have no right to decide over her life and death; I do not know her intentions, her thoughts, her circumstances, her conditions.

2. I would not like to be stoned. Stoning would be much worse than being a victim of adultery.

3. I do not think death can be a justifiable punishment for adultery, since to take life removes all possibility of life itself, which is just as important to her as it is to me, more-so than the ownership of my partner might be.

4. Stoning this woman is motivated by my own fear of consequence, not by compassion.

5. I have made mistakes in my life, and under different laws, I might also be stoned.

As for your last questions, about being 'the wrong side of morally wrong', that's an attitude of a person who looks for a condemnation or a sentence, not a person who looks for a compassionate outlook and holds forgiveness as a higher form of personally justifiable justice than duality and penalty.

I may be subject to the laws of my land, and I may be incarcerated for offending them, but I also have a personal choice to penalize others for offences against me, or to forgive them for offences against me. My personal justification for an empathetic, forgiving attitude toward those who have physically offended me stems from the realization that forgiveness towards others serves peace better than perpetual retribution.

There is no justification in my moral code for causing others to suffer because of that moral code. Harm, in our society, is synonymous with 'justice'. We say 'eye for eye', or at least 'finger for hand'. This harm is usually justified by saying either 'it deters others', 'punishment does not harm offenders, it reforms them', or 'harming offenders is good because it recompenses the crime'.

The first justification, 'it deters others', is essentially harming someone in the hope of changing the behaviour of someone else, but if harming someone truly deters others, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, also continue to have one of the highest overall crime rates? And if it is because people are continually more violent, then surely incarcerating more people does not make the country less violent.

The second argument, 'harming others reforms them', is essentially harming a person into changing their own personality. If harming a prisoner changed their personality, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, have one of the worst rates of recidivism? Prison is not reformatory in such a place, but rather it is dehumanizing - an exacerbation of wrong thought patterns, wrought with temptations, rather than a place for penitance and mindful examination of ones' crime and victims.

The third argument, 'harming offenders recompenses the crime' is blatant revenge based on a deontological perspective that says 'there is an absolute, equal moral law that God commands'. If that is the case, then surely God, who says 'revenge is mine' does not require our help to facilitate that objective, inescapable moral law.

There are just a few examples of why our 'sin, judgement, punishment' approach to legality, ethics, morality and justice is not only evidence of an utter failure to encourage perspectives that work toward our larger social vision for what humanity should be, but also a representation of our inability to recognize the breadth of our possibilities at all.

And that question, 'what should a human be', is one I consider better to ask than 'what external, originating, objecitve source do you have for your morality'. Look around you, man.

Again, you are the one requiring originating external justification for justice - you ask 'who made it', and without an answer to that question you consider justice unjustified, which itself is an oxymoron, and a problem that you and I do not share. Having read your posting Esanta I actually think I am"as I ignorant as I am letting on". I don't understand much of the fancy words you use but I firstly can say that I never asked " who made it". As a Christian I stated that I believe that God established the morality of His creation but my question was, and still remains, if you take a belief in God out of your value system, where do you get your concept of absolute morality? I'm not actually sure if you gave an answer to that question or not.
Sorry thats not exactly correct is it, because I would maintain that it is the fact that we ARE all created beings, made in the image of a morally pure God, that we as human beings all possess a God given knowledge of morality. I think that we might actually agree on this point. You use the example of a young child. "without the knowledge of God, as a young child, would you find the image of a woman lying dead with severed limbs offensive? I would, and the reason for that is because I imagine myself in another human being's shoes. I too would find this image morally offensive but unlike yourself, I would maintain that it is my God created spirit that finds most offence in this scene...it's upsetting because it upsets God and we are made in his likeness. We love because He is love, we create because He is the Creator, we have compassion because E is compassionate and we seek justice, because He is just. ACTS 17:28 "For in Him we live and move and have our being".
As for your argument that "Morality, at least for me, comes from mindful, observant examination of my motives, and from a sense that my own motives, thoughts and actions are the only motives, thoughts and actions which I am in full control of." Surely you cannot accept that this is a good basis for establishing morality. You may be a "nice" person and therefore your sense of morality may be generally acceptable but what if you were not a particularly "nice" person. Where would we be then, what if your mindful, observant examination of your motives, were less than honest, or compassionate or "fair"... what then? Or what about someone else's sense of motive. What if someone is capable of heinous acts without having any great sense of improper motive, who should decide what motives are right or just?
Do you personally feel capable of setting the moral boundaries for your own life.....if you do you're a better man than me Gungadin, I know that left to my own devices I am capable of some outrageously selfish behaviour and my motives are often far from altruistic.
what I do know is that on the Cross, justice was dealt with on my behalf and grace was poured out as the one who had no sin and every reason to mete out punnishment on me, took the punnishment that I deserved so that I might be set free from my sin for eternity.

 

[Esanta]

Again, you are the one requiring originating external justification for justice - you ask 'who made it', and without an answer to that question you consider justice unjustified, which itself is an oxymoron, and a problem that you and I do not share. Having read your posting Esanta I actually think I am"as I ignorant as I am letting on". I don't understand much of the fancy words you use but I firstly can say that I never asked " who made it". As a Christian I stated that I believe that God established the morality of His creation but my question was, and still remains, if you take a belief in God out of your value system, where do you get your concept of absolute morality? I'm not actually sure if you gave an answer to that question or not.
Sorry thats not exactly correct is it, because I would maintain that it is the fact that we ARE all created beings, made in the image of a morally pure God, that we as human beings all possess a God given knowledge of morality. I think that we might actually agree on this point. You use the example of a young child. "without the knowledge of God, as a young child, would you find the image of a woman lying dead with severed limbs offensive? I would, and the reason for that is because I imagine myself in another human being's shoes. I too would find this image morally offensive but unlike yourself, I would maintain that it is my God created spirit that finds most offence in this scene...it's upsetting because it upsets God and we are made in his likeness. We love because He is love, we create because He is the Creator, we have compassion because E is compassionate and we seek justice, because He is just. ACTS 17:28 "For in Him we live and move and have our being".
As for your argument that "Morality, at least for me, comes from mindful, observant examination of my motives, and from a sense that my own motives, thoughts and actions are the only motives, thoughts and actions which I am in full control of." Surely you cannot accept that this is a good basis for establishing morality. You may be a "nice" person and therefore your sense of morality may be generally acceptable but what if you were not a particularly "nice" person. Where would we be then, what if your mindful, observant examination of your motives, were less than honest, or compassionate or "fair"... what then? Or what about someone else's sense of motive. What if someone is capable of heinous acts without having any great sense of improper motive, who should decide what motives are right or just?
Do you personally feel capable of setting the moral boundaries for your own life.....if you do you're a better man than me Gungadin, I know that left to my own devices I am capable of some outrageously selfish behaviour and my motives are often far from altruistic.
what I do know is that on the Cross, justice was dealt with on my behalf and grace was poured out as the one who had no sin and every reason to mete out punnishment on me, took the punnishment that I deserved so that I might be set free from my sin for eternity.

I've read your post, so allow me to simplify. You ask me, 'do you personally feel capable of setting the moral boundaries of your own life'? My answer is obviously, a resounding yes, because all I need to do is examine whether my motives are altruistic, and it's easy to distinguish a good motive from a bad motive in that light.

A good motive wants for others better than what it wants for itself. A good motive doesn't wish harm, doesn't chance harm, doesn't flirt with harm. A good motive wants to alleviate suffering rather than exacerbate it. A good motive is tolerant, non-judgemental, soft tempered.

And yea, I don't succeed all the time, but neither does anyone. That's exactly why we need things like forgiveness, tolerance, patience, empathy, yet we don't always find the reason, rhyme or character in a deontological code, that is, a set of rules to be obeyed regardless of motive, cause, effect or outcome.

That's my point, effectively. Morality, in practice, is never absolute, because it's never exactly the same for two different people or even two different situations. There are bases; compassion, fairness, wanting to alleviate suffering instead of worsen it, but the exact approach is never exactly the same.

Give me two moral dilemmas that have been exactly the same in all of human history and you'll be the impossible man.

 

[Sirk]

I've read your post, so allow me to simplify. You ask me, 'do you personally feel capable of setting the moral boundaries of your own life'? My answer is obviously, a resounding yes, because all I need to do is examine whether my motives are altruistic, and it's easy to distinguish a good motive from a bad motive in that light.

A good motive wants for others better than what it wants for itself. A good motive doesn't wish harm, doesn't chance harm, doesn't flirt with harm. A good motive wants to alleviate suffering rather than exacerbate it. A good motive is tolerant, non-judgemental, soft tempered.

And yea, I don't succeed all the time, but neither does anyone. That's exactly why we need things like forgiveness, tolerance, patience, empathy, yet we don't always find the reason, rhyme or character in a deontological code, that is, a set of rules to be obeyed regardless of motive, cause, effect or outcome.

That's my point, effectively. Morality, in practice, is never absolute, because it's never exactly the same for two different people or even two different situations. There are bases; compassion, fairness, wanting to alleviate suffering instead of worsen it, but the exact approach is never exactly the same.

Give me two moral dilemmas that have been exactly the same in all of human history and you'll be the impossible man.

...and that is the point of grace. Because you are hopelessly flawed and in need of Jesus. With man, "truth like a moving target, with hairs to split and pieces that don't fit". With God, truth is absolute and right and wrong are as simple as black and white. You Esanta, are a prisoner of your own "education".

 

[Esanta]

...and that is the point of grace. Because you are hopelessly flawed and in need of Jesus. With man, "truth like a moving target, with hairs to split and pieces that don't fit". With God, truth is absolute and right and wrong are as simple as black and white. You Esanta, are a prisoner of your own "education".

No, you're wrong. I'm liberated by my education. I feel privileged to be part of something that's never the same for a second. That's what makes life precious, and whatever is precious to me, I shouldn't try to steal from someone else in any way - physically, mentally, emotionally or figuratively.

 

[Pottyone]

No, you're wrong. I'm liberated by my education. I feel privileged to be part of something that's never the same for a second. That's what makes life precious, and whatever is precious to me, I shouldn't try to steal from someone else in any way - physically, mentally, emotionally or figuratively.

But Esanta what you are saying is exactly the problem with the way this world operates.....you want to set the boundaries for your own morality based on what YOU consider to be altruistic...what YOU consider to be for the good of humanity. You are constantly making judgement calls ( as are we all) based not on the governance of a Holy, all loving, omniscient, God but rather on how YOU understand life to be. You, like myself are part of a flawed sinful humanity which puts self first. We can't help it it is in our nature and I would challenge you that this sums you up...just like me. That's why we need a higher wisdom than our own to establish ultimate morality. A God who with impartial wisdom, knows whats best for humanity and who in JesusChrist gave himself completely so that on the cross justice and grace meet to provide us with eternal hope. That's why life without God...life without the Holy Spirit is always going to fall far short of life as it was supposed to be and as it will once again be when Christ judges the living and the dead from all of history, with righteous judgement and total justice?

 

[Esanta]

But Esanta what you are saying is exactly the problem with the way this world operates.....you want to set the boundaries for your own morality based on what YOU consider to be altruistic...what YOU consider to be for the good of humanity. You are constantly making judgement calls ( as are we all) based not on the governance of a Holy, all loving, omniscient, God but rather on how YOU understand life to be. You, like myself are part of a flawed sinful humanity which puts self first. We can't help it it is in our nature and I would challenge you that this sums you up...just like me. That's why we need a higher wisdom than our own to establish ultimate morality. A God who with impartial wisdom, knows whats best for humanity and who in JesusChrist gave himself completely so that on the cross justice and grace meet to provide us with eternal hope. That's why life without God...life without the Holy Spirit is always going to fall far short of life as it was supposed to be and as it will once again be when Christ judges the living and the dead from all of history, with righteous judgement and total justice?

Pottytone, disregard for a second whether or not my moral decisions or perspectives have an originating source that justifies them - God, Jesus, whomever - and then let me ask you, would you disagree with the statement ''a motive of empathy and compassion is a good motive''?

If it is not a good motive, then it is a bad motive. But I don't think anyone would say a motive of compassion is a bad motive.

So, honestly, you're stating a problem that doesn't exist for me. The problem exists for you and your perspective of me. I, myself, don't have any problem with justifying morality without an originating, external source, because ''a motive of compassion is a good motive'', to both of us.

'Why' and 'how' are two things that can be answered in different ways, but the fact remains, ''compassion is a good motive''.

 

[Percepi]

There's this false dichotomy that either there are absolute morals bestowed upon us by a perfect entity, or there's absolutely zero morality.

Morality is a man made concept with a very large number of influences which makes it impossible to give a simple answer as to how our morality is derived.

Christians tend to think that if there isn't an objective morality granted by a superior being, then morality must be subjective. If morality is subjective, it must be an opinion. And if it's an opinion, then it must be arbitrary.

The problem is that we can't decide whether or not something is objective or subjective without a point of reference. In the grand scheme of things, morality is subjective. But at a personal level, it can be quite objective. This is because morality is a man made concept. Think of it this way: Are the rules of chess objective or subjective? Mankind dictated the rules of chess, so the rules must be subjective, right? But, the rules are well established and if you wish to play chess competitively, you must accept these rules - in which case they're now objective. (I'm not saying something is moral simply because a person in position of power said it's moral, I'm just pointing out that objective and subjective rely on points of reference).

This is why we must do away with discussing whether or not morality is objective or subjective, because these terms only refer to extreme ends of the spectrum in the broadest sense imaginable. Either morality is objective because it's dictated by a higher power, or it's subjective. This false dichotomy ignores the human perception in which logic exists.

The best way to look at the issue is to pretend you live in an alternate universe. Allow me to ask some questions:

If you lived in a reality in which everything is essentially how it is now, but without the existence of any gods, and you were able to somehow obtain knowledge in which you were for certain God didn't exist, would you abide by what we generally refer to as moral? Would you continue to consent to sex and trade? Would you help other people? Would you love others around you? Or, without objective morality, would you stop doing these things and do whatever you want?

Here's another scenario. What if you discovered, without a doubt, that the god who exists isn't Yahweh? What if this god created the earth and made it objectively immoral to consent to sex, consent to trade, and helping others? Would you start raping women, stealing, and letting people suffer? Or would you defy this hypothetical entity and continue to speak against rape, support free trade, and help others?

Keep in mind, these are hypothetical thought experiments. I presented these two scenarios to determine if you believe our actions are inherently good, or if they're only good because an entity told us they were good.

 

[Percepi]

But Esanta what you are saying is exactly the problem with the way this world operates.....you want to set the boundaries for your own morality based on what YOU consider to be altruistic...what YOU consider to be for the good of humanity. You are constantly making judgement calls ( as are we all) based not on the governance of a Holy, all loving, omniscient, God but rather on how YOU understand life to be. You, like myself are part of a flawed sinful humanity which puts self first. We can't help it it is in our nature and I would challenge you that this sums you up...just like me. That's why we need a higher wisdom than our own to establish ultimate morality. A God who with impartial wisdom, knows whats best for humanity and who in JesusChrist gave himself completely so that on the cross justice and grace meet to provide us with eternal hope. That's why life without God...life without the Holy Spirit is always going to fall far short of life as it was supposed to be and as it will once again be when Christ judges the living and the dead from all of history, with righteous judgement and total justice?

You state that humans need a higher wisdom to refer to. But what if there isn't a higher wisdom? You're talking to atheists who don't believe in God. As we see it... without a higher wisdom, we need to do the best we can to create a moral system that is as fair as possible while maintaining high standards of living and happiness for as many people as possible. Yes, humans are flawed. This is why our system is not perfect. This is why we're constantly trying to better our current moral views through philosophy.

 

[PennEd]

You state that humans need a higher wisdom to refer to. But what if there isn't a higher wisdom? You're talking to atheists who don't believe in God. As we see it... without a higher wisdom, we need to do the best we can to create a moral system that is as fair as possible while maintaining high standards of living and happiness for as many people as possible. Yes, humans are flawed. This is why our system is not perfect. This is why we're constantly trying to better our current moral views through philosophy.

WOW!! Why can't you understand that without moral absolutes, derived from a Creator, there CAN NEVER be a" moral system that is fair to everyone" BECAUSE your idea of what is fair is going to be different not only to other people, but other generations. Legalized pot, homosexual marriage, even just cursing on tv..ETC.. were UNTHINKABLE just half a generation ago. In another half generation, with this type of floating morality, pedophilia, rape, heck, even legally murdering your neighbor will be the societal norm.

 

[Pottyone]

You state that humans need a higher wisdom to refer to. But what if there isn't a higher wisdom? You're talking to atheists who don't believe in God. As we see it... without a higher wisdom, we need to do the best we can to create a moral system that is as fair as possible while maintaining high standards of living and happiness for as many people as possible. Yes, humans are flawed. This is why our system is not perfect. This is why we're constantly trying to better our current moral views through philosophy.

Hi Percepi....nice to chat.
i think you may actually have hit the nail on the head actually by your comments. You see you state that in e absence of a higher wisdom, mankind must do the best it can to create a moral system that is as fair as possible......but I would question he "logic" of this position from an atheistic point of view. In the absence of a "higher wisdom" as you all it why would it make sense to seek fairness for everyone. It puts one animal at a naturalistic disadvantage in its striving to survive a further it's existence to be fair to a weaker person. When it comes down to it if survival depends on getting the upper hand over a weaker person it makes no "logical sense" to allow the other to grow and flourish to the level of self deprecation....and yet often we do....Why?
i would suggest that it is because we are made in the image of a righteous, holy and loving God that we bear His likeness ( all be it marred by sin) and therefore deep down we know the value of another's life. We recoil at cruelty carried out to another person, and even animals and we know "right" from "wrong". In the absence of God none of this makes evolutionary sense...I believe that the Atheist wants to "have their cake and eat it" morally speaking. Outside of a moral God there is no such thing as the concept of justice, it is incompatible with evolutionary life. But then again as we are all created by God we cannot step outside of the framework i which we were created to examine the hypothetical situations you explore because we speak only from he position of moral beings who know right from wrong.
Here's another scenario. What if you discovered, without a doubt, that the god who exists isn't Yahweh? What if this god created the earth and made it objectively immoral to consent to sex, consent to trade, and helping others? Would you start raping women, stealing, and letting people suffer? Or would you defy this hypothetical entity and continue to speak against rape, support free trade, and help others? This is an impossible scenario to analyse as I have been created with Gods moral compass built in and therefore everything I say is influenced by that fact. It is interesting to speculate however how society might look upon such activities if indeed the creator god you hypothesise about did indeed have a different morality. I imagine society would be very different indeed. Rape would possibly no longer be seen as rape as we think of it and likewise the other situations you mention would similarly be looked upon differently and I imagine hat no one would feel the compunction to " speak up against" these things. But you see our God has set in place a moral framework that in His wisdom He knows is for the best of all humanity. I do not believe He has arbitrarily plucked moral laws out of the air like some sort of game where he thinks things and then goes.."ennie, meenie, Minnie mo....." Will it be in the good list or the naughty list. He knows what works, He knows what makes for a good society and workable mainly life etc.....it's not by some pure random chance hat things are as they are...that good is good and ad is bad. Good is good for humanity and evil is ad for humanity.










.

 

[Percepi]

WOW!! Why can't you understand that without moral absolutes, derived from a Creator, there CAN NEVER be a" moral system that is fair to everyone" BECAUSE your idea of what is fair is going to be different not only to other people, but other generations. Legalized pot, homosexual marriage, even just cursing on tv..ETC.. were UNTHINKABLE just half a generation ago. In another half generation, with this type of floating morality, pedophilia, rape, heck, even legally murdering your neighbor will be the societal norm.

You're arguing that we need a creator, therefore there must be a creator.

Atheists don't believe in a creator, so all we can do is our best.

Yes, there will always be disagreements and there may very well be things that are quite controversial. But, to state that we'll soon legalize rape and pedophilia is based on an assumption that cussing somehow causes people to want to sexually assault other people. Morality is moving in a direction you disagree with, so it's easy to see how humans are failing. But, you're basing your morality off of the Bible, or God, which never changes - so any change in what society deems as moral will always differ from what you believe is moral.

that in e absence of a higher wisdom, mankind must do the best it can to create a moral system that is as fair as possible......but I would question he "logic" of this position from an atheistic point of view. In the absence of a "higher wisdom" as you all it why would it make sense to seek fairness for everyone. It puts one animal at a naturalistic disadvantage in its striving to survive a further it's existence to be fair to a weaker person. When it comes down to it if survival depends on getting the upper hand over a weaker person it makes no "logical sense" to allow the other to grow and flourish to the level of self deprecation....and yet often we do....Why?

In a sense, you provided the answer to your own question.

But you see our God has set in place a moral framework that in His wisdom He knows is for the best of all humanity. I do not believe He has arbitrarily plucked moral laws out of the air like some sort of game where he thinks things and then goes.."ennie, meenie, Minnie mo....." Will it be in the good list or the naughty list. He knows what works, He knows what makes for a good society and workable mainly life etc.....it's not by some pure random chance hat things are as they are...that good is good and ad is bad. Good is good for humanity and evil is ad for humanity.

You state that God didn't just randomly decide what is good and bad, that he picked what would be best for humanity. But, if there isn't a God, this is how morality is dictated by people. We try to dictate what is morally best for humanity.

Obviously, we haven't figured out a way in which everyone wins. In fact, it's most likely going to be impossible. But this doesn't mean we need to stop trying. We just need to do the best we can. It's why we have politics. >.>

The goal isn't "perfection or bust", it's to do the best we can.

I will say one thing though, Pottyone, you seem to show a better understanding of how atheists derive their morality from their environment and emotions. Whether this is something you already understood or something you picked up in our convo, I feel we've made some good progress. : )

As for your response to my second question, you provide a pretty good answer. It wasn't a right or wrong, but it does allow me to dig a bit more into your thought process. I appreciate the response.

 

[Tintin]

Sirk, you accuse over a billion people of crimes committed by a small minority numbering in the thousands, then use those bigoted accusations as the sole justification of your call for worldwide unification against every one of those billion people.

Where do you get your numbers? From The Huff-Too-Much-Paint (The Huffington Post)? There are millions of Christians being violently persecuted around the world, mostly by Muslims and you say the perpetrators are only in the thousands? Don't make me laugh!

 

[Esanta]

Where do you get your numbers? From The Huff-Too-Much-Paint (The Huffington Post)? There are millions of Christians being violently persecuted around the world, mostly by Muslims and you say the perpetrators are only in the thousands? Don't make me laugh!

Ever the factionalist, Tintin. Why don't you feel any compassion for the innocent Muslims who get killed as well as the Christians? What about the Hindus? Or, God forbid, the Buddhists and atheists? Why do you only care about the Christian deaths?

You know, it only took 100,000 troops, many of whom never engaged in combat, to kill directly or indirectly, by some estimates, about half a million Iraqis. And you should know 'persecution' is not synonymous with 'death'. As well as that, your figures are absolutely wrong, and deliberately misframed.

BBC News - Are there really 100,000 new Christian martyrs every year?

The Western governments have in fact, contributed to killing more Muslims in the last 30 years than every Islamic terrorist attack of that period combined. At the extreme USA-favourable estimates, 3-4 Muslims have died for every US citizen, but that number is likely a lot higher.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

See here, there are at the very minimum estimate, 127,176 direct civilian deaths in Iraq alone, at the hands of either Muslim aggressors or NATO troops. Now, including combatants, that death toll rises to, again, at minimum estimate, 193,000. That doesn't include deaths in America, or deaths in Afghanistan or anywhere else, only on Iraqi soil. This means that even if we assume all killed combatants are NATO (which is a very generous assumption), about 2 civilians die for every combatant. If we take the more realistic stance that the majority of the combatant deaths were Taliban or Al Qaeda, and only about 20,000 (still a generous estimate beyond statistical evidence) were NATO, then we have a ratio of about 9 civilians for every NATO soldier.

Now, consider the degree to which, in our culture, 'all Muslims' are painted as the enemy, rather than 'some Muslims', and consider the way in which in Afghanistan, Iraq, 'all Americans', 'Christian America', is painted as the enemy, rather than 'some Americans', and you can see why the number of targets and members of these extremists organizations is growing.

It should be noted that more credible estimates that deal with non-direct unavoidable deaths paint a much more grizzly picture of what's happened in Iraq, casualties wise. Imagine, Tintin, ten years ago, being a ten year old boy who has seen bones and blood, limbs, dead women and children in the streets, had your water supply cut off, been a refugee, had insufficient food, safety, shelter, clothing, medicine, perhaps lost your own family. Your whole world has been turned upside down and the vast majority of this is a result of an invasion by a highly trained, highly funded, extremely powerful military whom you've never offended in any way, because you can't - you're a ten year old boy.

Where would you be in ten years?

If your homeland, Australia, took such a beating like that, I would imagine you would feel very aggrieved. But I don't think you can get that, because you live in relative wealth, comfort, security and safety.

I'm not condoning terrorism, Tintin, don't get me wrong, no more than I condone massacring people a damn-sight weaker, but it'd certainly be nice for other people to be able to see the flipside of the story.

 

[Esanta]

Where do you get your numbers? From The Huff-Too-Much-Paint (The Huffington Post)? There are millions of Christians being violently persecuted around the world, mostly by Muslims and you say the perpetrators are only in the thousands? Don't make me laugh!

Also, he talked about actual terrorists attacks, (perpetrators of which number less than a few thousand in the last 30 years), not 'persecution of Christians'. That's changing goalposts. He basically called all Muslims terrorists, and I said:

''Sirk, you accuse over a billion people of crimes committed by a small minority numbering in the thousands, then use those bigoted accusations as the sole justification of your call for worldwide unification against every one of those billion people.''

If you look at every Islamic terrorist attack in the last 30 years, the perpetrators of those attacks are few. It only takes one man in a vest to do a lot of damage (thus, disgustingly, a lot of deaths), but that doesn't make every Muslim a terrorist.

 

[Pottyone]

You're arguing that we need a creator, therefore there must be a creator.

Atheists don't believe in a creator, so all we can do is our best.

Yes, there will always be disagreements and there may very well be things that are quite controversial. But, to state that we'll soon legalize rape and pedophilia is based on an assumption that cussing somehow causes people to want to sexually assault other people. Morality is moving in a direction you disagree with, so it's easy to see how humans are failing. But, you're basing your morality off of the Bible, or God, which never changes - so any change in what society deems as moral will always differ from what you believe is moral.



In a sense, you provided the answer to your own question.



You state that God didn't just randomly decide what is good and bad, that he picked what would be best for humanity. But, if there isn't a God, this is how morality is dictated by people. We try to dictate what is morally best for humanity.

Obviously, we haven't figured out a way in which everyone wins. In fact, it's most likely going to be impossible. But this doesn't mean we need to stop trying. We just need to do the best we can. It's why we have politics. >.>

The goal isn't "perfection or bust", it's to do the best we can.

I will say one thing though, Pottyone, you seem to show a better understanding of how atheists derive their morality from their environment and emotions. Whether this is something you already understood or something you picked up in our convo, I feel we've made some good progress. : )

As for your response to my second question, you provide a pretty good answer. It wasn't a right or wrong, but it does allow me to dig a bit more into your thought process. I appreciate the response.

Well it certainly is nice and may I say increasingly less common to have a considered and respectful conversation with some one on this site who holds a different viewpoint than Christianity...normally by now the debate has descended into the vitriolic lol.
i can see where you are coming from with the derivation of morality however I believe that atheism doesn't offer the ultimate basis for such a morality. The problem for me is that in the absence of an omniscient moral God there is no logic to be had in pursuing a morality which seeks the good of all...this altruistic attitude cannot be derived from an evolutionary being who's origins and a happily chance encounter of base chemicals. There has to be an ordered designer behind such a sophisticated thought process. After all why should any evolutionary being care about cruelty being acted upon another. Think of the herd of antelope being stalked by a lion. every animal in the herd acts co operatively to protect itself by sticking with the herd but once one animal as been singled out and caught the herd simply relaxes carries on grazing, breathing a collective sigh that it wasn't them that got eaten this time. They don't, as far as I know display moral outrage at the butchery in their midst, they don't try to come to the aid of the stricken animal, individuals don't make a conscious decision to sacrifice themselves for the good of the herd...to lay down their lives for others, they simply carry on displaying a "that weeds out the sick and slow, or lame of the species" attitude. In fact thats not quite right...they don't have an attitude at all even. But we do, it's built in. We show outrage, a desire for justice, retribution, redress. We get upset, show empathy, want to put things right, etc. but why....surely its because we are hard wired that way and I believe that this an only have been done by a moral creator not a process of evolution which "seeks" only the preservation of the species.
do you believe that society in the world in general, is moving toward or away from a higher degree of moral purity. I genuinely believe that the world is becoming more morally depraved as the generations pass. I believe that humanity is become less and less like it was intended to be and more selfish, more about looking after number one and I believe, as you would expect me to, that this is a consequence of sin becoming more and more prolific in he world as a whole. Can you see where I'm coming from.