Amppax Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323412215' post='2347837'] I still don't understand though. It god wants people to freely make choices, then wouldn't laws restrict those choices and thus be contrary to god's want? How can god judge us if we haven't been given enough rope to hang ourselves? [/quote] Well laws don't force people to act in a specific way, otherwise there would be no crime. A law doesn't restrict my choices, I can still freely choose to get drunk and drive. Does the law have some bearing on my choices? Obviously, but it doesn't compel me to decide one way or the other, just make it more likely that I'll choose the less offensive option. Also I've wanted to ask you why you don't believe in a concept of good and evil? I think it would help a lot of us understand your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1323440689' post='2347904'] Also I've wanted to ask you why you don't believe in a concept of good and evil? I think it would help a lot of us understand your perspective. [/quote] Why I don't believe in good and evil? I don't believe in god, so doesn't good and evil only take meaning in relation to a god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323459728' post='2348204'] Why I don't believe in good and evil? I don't believe in god, so doesn't good and evil only take meaning in relation to a god? [/quote] If everything is neither good nor evil, then how could any law or no law be unacceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissyP89 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Stevil, is murder wrong? And if so, why? (Sorry if this was already addressed; I've not been following.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323464335' post='2348232'] If everything is neither good nor evil, then how could any law or no law be unacceptable? [/quote] I don't think that it is the government's responsibility to create a "moral" society, merely a functional one. If a government attempted to be responsible for morality then they would struggle to find a moral base that all of society agrees with. Catholics would want their church to be the moral advisor to the government, but so would Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Bhudists, etc. Ultimately I feel that if their a god and it wants people to have free will so that it can judge us based on our short lives on earth, then it would need us to have the ability to make moral choices. It would then ultimately judge us on morality issues, not our government or our society. [quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1323467731' post='2348246'] Stevil, is murder wrong? And if so, why? (Sorry if this was already addressed; I've not been following.) [/quote] I don't believe in an objective right or wrong, so I can simply say that murder is wrong. There are different definitions of murder and different situations entailed in the various acts of murder. Catholics would define euthanasia as murder however I feel that euthanasia should be legal. I feel the death sentence is a desirable act for repeat violent offenders. With regards to, lets say, a simple case where a person picks up a gun and randomly shoot someone for fun. I would say this person is a danger to society and needs to be locked up to prevent the issue happening again, also as a deterent for other would be offenders. With regards to right or wrong, I would say, let god decide, if god exists. My personal opinion on law is that it should only provide enough rules for society to be functional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323590167' post='2349034'] I don't think that it is the government's responsibility to create a "moral" society, merely a functional one. If a government attempted to be responsible for morality then they would struggle to find a moral base that all of society agrees with. Catholics would want their church to be the moral advisor to the government, but so would Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Bhudists, etc. Ultimately I feel that if their a god and it wants people to have free will so that it can judge us based on our short lives on earth, then it would need us to have the ability to make moral choices. It would then ultimately judge us on morality issues, not our government or our society. I don't believe in an objective right or wrong, so I can simply say that murder is wrong. There are different definitions of murder and different situations entailed in the various acts of murder. Catholics would define euthanasia as murder however I feel that euthanasia should be legal. I feel the death sentence is a desirable act for repeat violent offenders. With regards to, lets say, a simple case where a person picks up a gun and randomly shoot someone for fun. I would say this person is a danger to society and needs to be locked up to prevent the issue happening again, also as a deterent for other would be offenders. With regards to right or wrong, I would say, let god decide, if god exists. My personal opinion on law is that it should only provide enough rules for society to be functional. [/quote] Then, what is functional? And who is the authority that decides what is functional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323609179' post='2349059'] Then, what is functional? And who is the authority that decides what is functional? [/quote] Very good question. The authority with regards to the rules (laws) of a functional society is the government (legislative law) and the judicial system (common law). This does not mean that you can't have your chosen church teach and promote moral rules to those whom want to listen. But I don't feel it is government's place to set and enforce moral law. If god exists, then god doesn't need any help with regards to judgment and conviction, ultimately god is supposed to be all powerful. I presume if god exists and wants to judge us then by reason this god wants us to individually make choices upon which we can be judged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323459728' post='2348204'] Why I don't believe in good and evil? I don't believe in god, so doesn't good and evil only take meaning in relation to a god? [/quote] personally, I am of the opinion that actions can be objectively right or wrong regardless of the existence of God. However, I would agree with you up to a point, in that I believe that if God doesn't exist, then it is largely pointless to label things right or wrong, good or bad. It is easy to view things in a mathematical sense. An action either has a negative or a positive consequence. In a world with God, there are consequences to these negative or positive actions; while in a world without God, ultimately there is not eternal consequence. I'm honestly not sure if that made any sense, I'm in the middle of my exam week, and its way too late for coherent thought. Edited December 12, 2011 by Amppax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1323671602' post='2349666'] personally, I am of the opinion that actions can be objectively right or wrong regardless of the existence of God. However, I would agree with you up to a point, in that I believe that if God doesn't exist, then it is largely pointless to label things right or wrong, good or bad. It is easy to view things in a mathematical sense. An action either has a negative or a positive consequence. In a world with God, there are consequences to these negative or positive actions; while in a world without God, ultimately there is not eternal consequence. I'm honestly not sure if that made any sense, I'm in the middle of my exam week, and its way too late for coherent thought. [/quote] That was a clear and concise post. How do you think an atheist would come to agreement on an objective good or an objective bad? Obviously there are some simple cases where the vast majority of people would say something is good if they had to choose between neutral, good or bad. But does consensus, majority or unanimous make something objective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin31 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323675066' post='2349686'] How do you think an atheist would come to agreement on an objective good or an objective bad? [/quote] Speaking as a former atheist: "Does the actions of a person, persons, entity, or society cause a net positive or net negative effect upon another person, persons, entity, or society including the self?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1323675624' post='2349689'] Speaking as a former atheist: "Does the actions of a person, persons, entity, or society cause a net positive or net negative effect upon another person, persons, entity, or society including the self?" [/quote] I am assuming this is a question to me rather than an answer to my question. Actions have consequences, yes. Trying to quantify whether these consequences are positive or negative or plain neutral is a subjective process. In some circumstances it can seem obvious and in others not so obvious. Is the definition of an objective good "A positive consensus by a group of people based on their perception of whether an action (as described to them) would result in a positive outcome for society"? If so, this would seem like a very subjective question posed to the people belonging to the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323684653' post='2349700'] I am assuming this is a question to me rather than an answer to my question. Actions have consequences, yes. Trying to quantify whether these consequences are positive or negative or plain neutral is a subjective process. In some circumstances it can seem obvious and in others not so obvious. Is the definition of an objective good "A positive consensus by a group of people based on their perception of whether an action (as described to them) would result in a positive outcome for society"? If so, this would seem like a very subjective question posed to the people belonging to the group. [/quote] Its fairly simple to see that the murder of the innocent (lets just avoid all confusion and stay simple) causes harm to the one killed, harm that far outweighs whatever reason the murderer has for killing. I would say that there will be very simple to reach a consensus about certain things, murder being the best example. Now, sometimes it is harder to see where the harm is, but it doesn't mean that it is subjective, just more difficult to determine the positive or negative in a situation. I would say that there is definitely is a grey area, but that doesn't mean its a completely subjective thing. Edited December 12, 2011 by Amppax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1323699952' post='2349745'] Its fairly simple to see that the murder of the innocent (lets just avoid all confusion and stay simple) causes harm to the one killed, harm that far outweighs whatever reason the murderer has for killing. [/quote] There are many animals in nature that fight and even kill each other in order to be the alpha male, the one that gets to impregnate all the females. In this situation where an animal fights and kills the leader (whom is presumably innocent) and thus becomes the leader himself and then has earned the breeding rights within the pack, would you consider this killing act to be bad, evil, immoral or would it simply be an act of nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323712626' post='2349809'] There are many animals in nature that fight and even kill each other in order to be the alpha male, the one that gets to impregnate all the females. In this situation where an animal fights and kills the leader (whom is presumably innocent) and thus becomes the leader himself and then has earned the breeding rights within the pack, would you consider this killing act to be bad, evil, immoral or would it simply be an act of nature? [/quote] Animals|Humans => Apples|Oranges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323713006' post='2349812'] Animals|Humans => Apples|Oranges [/quote] Humans [b]are [/b]animals, we have developed some social rules to suggest that we shouldn't kill each other for the right to impregnate a woman. Although our rules make sense, I don't see how they are objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now