That's not true, though, and I'm certain you don't actually live like that. Desires matter more on a daily basis than your supposedly objective morality.
I think maybe you are confused in how I was referring to "matters"... Which is okay, given that it can be used for multiple meanings, let's just not turn that into equivocation...
Desires may determine how we act, I.E, my desire for lust may be stronger than my desire to love God, and not live in rebellion to God. These desires however, don't make anything moral or immoral by simply being a desire, as this would be subjective and ultimately illusory. To bring this back to the subject of the thread, one persons desire to see homosexual couples get legally married, is no more important or right, than say Uganda's desire to lynch homosexuals.
Interestingly, I find that a lot of Christian morality corresponds directly to what a lot of people desire and I don't think this is coincidental.
Well, if we were created by God to be moral creatures, you might just expect said moral creatures to desire that which is morally good.
Romans 2:14-15 (New International Version)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Interestingly enough, if a person is in a state of rebellion against God, we might actually not be surprised to find that they object to said Moral Law.
I find it odd though that you say you find Christian morality corresponds directly to what a lot of people desire. Have you not seen the gratuitous amount of people protesting in rebellion against God, various things in the bible when it comes to morality? Homosexuality, lust, fornication, adultery, pride.... I don't know of anything that is apart of Christian morality, that people somewhere don't object to...
There's nothing in it that couldn't be derived from human preference (and in fact I think it was).
Are you serious? You really think human beings decided that it was wrong to do all the things we love to do?
On the same subject, the CC user Credo stated...
Credo_Ut_Intelligam said:
How did the covenant curses make it into the book, since most of the society broke the covenant and came under the curse? If they were just making it up the way they wanted, why did they make up stipulations they couldn't and didn't keep? Why make a moral standard so high that your own good works are judged to be "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)? Why make a standard so high that "the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21) and that "there is no one who does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46)?
I don't understand how anyone can think that biblical morality, is something people made up.... As if we humans run around constantly lamenting about how we do the things we love to do!
What happens when humans create "moral codes"? It generally ends up something like...
1 Rules 2:35 said:
Do as thou wilt. Do that which maketh thee happy, delightful, merry, and what generally makes you feel good.
If you want, I suppose you could argue....
The Lamest Ad Hoc Explaination Everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr said:
There were some people long long ago, in a mountain cave far far away, situation just a hop and a skip away from Jerusalem... These young men, had been IRL trolling for many many years, mostly just egging peoples camels... It totally made the nomadic herders angry. Have you ever tried to clean sun cooked Raptor egg out of a camels hair? It's pretty tough. So they decided they wanted all the glory to themselves, and so that they would be remembered through the annals of history as the greatest trolls who ever lived. So they sent their buddy Moses up the mountain to carve some tablets, and he made everyyyyyone a bunch of rules, like don't fornicate, be humble, don't lust over your neighbors wife, and definately don't play Medicine Man with the cheifs wife, which everyone loved to do. They knew if they could get everyone to stop what they loved to do, they'd be so frustrated with this idea they called sin, and it would keep them so occupied that they would never begin to ask any critical questions. The Space-Trolls laughed and giggled for millions of years, from the port side window of their space craft. Unfortunately for their buddy Moses, he get left on earth, but atleast he got to ride a Tricerotops over at Mount Moriah, and shoot lazer beams out of his eyes..
Obviously the spelling errors demonstrates that this was not meant to be inspired by Zenu.
Please, just please do like Archaya S... "Lack of Evidence for Conspiracy Theory= Evidence of a Cover Up"
Since you're unable to demonstrate that your morality is objective, I'll go ahead and conclude that your frequent criticism of other forms of morality as subjective is just you having some fun and hoping nobody carries the argument further. Honestly, you should have had this answer ready long before leveling that charge against other systems. You had to know the challenge was coming.
Here's the thing I think you might be missing... Anyone who challenges that, torturing children for fun is objectively immoral, is either a psychopath or someone trying to score some points in an argument. This is a moral fact.
Scientific American said:
Charming but Callous
First described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941, psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it.
Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.
What "Psychopath" Means: Scientific American <--- click
At this point, a third party observer would probably conclude that you're actually arguing for the insufficiency of all moral systems. You've been very careless with this particular argument.
If there is no objective morality, then no subjective system could ever be correct. We would have to face reality, and become Nihilists.
Concerning the first part of the solution, it's not a solution. All they've done is shift god's arbitrary preference to an inherent quality. It's not an essential part of the Euthyphro argument that the preference be an arbitrary exercise of power. We don't care why god expressed a particular morality. It either comes from the god or it comes from above him - we don't care the process the god used to derive it, if it's the former.
Hold up, so if it's not an essential part of the Euthypro dilemna that it be arbitrary, then what was that first part of the dilemna?
God's issueing of "commands" stems from his immutable nature. That is, he is in his basic nature, morally perfect.
If we did care, the page provides no argument there that god's character was necessarily that character. You would need to argue that that manifestation of god is the only possible manifestation of god and that this morality, which is welded into his nature, is not accidental. The argument says that this morality is "fixed and absolute." Why? Essentially, all that page did was put the external law into god. He is still a slave of an object beyond his control. It doesn't matter that we've attached it to his character directly.
Why do I need to argue for God's nature being morally perfect? Is it not sufficient that God's nature be the basis of the commands? That a morally perfect God would "legislate" perfect morality? A morally perfect God couldn't have commanded moral evil... So where is the problem?
You're balking at the most important points in this conversation. Please understand that this lack of effort and preparation is why you're going to be ignored.
What are the most important points I've balked?
