Morals Not From God

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1914434' date='Jul 8 2009, 02:23 PM']Has anyone brought up Hitler, yet?[/quote]


Why?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1914497' date='Jul 8 2009, 03:47 PM']Why?[/quote]

Because that's where most arguments on good/evil end up here lately.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1914501' date='Jul 8 2009, 03:52 PM']Because that's where most arguments on good/evil end up here lately.[/quote]


hm.

[heavenseeker]

idk if this was already stated but,
there are absolute (objective) good and evil, and social (subjective) goods and evils. the goods and evils that are subjective are the ones that change according to law place to place era to era. the objective goods and evils are the constant and are agreed on by everyone (unless they are vicious). for a good or evil to be objective it must be one that will not be defeated by its self if its opposite were to replace it. for example to lie is held as an objective evil because if it was a subjective evil it could change to a good. if to lie was considered a good then it is to say that people should lie, and if people should lie instead of not lie then everyone is telling a lies and nobody knows the truth of anything. even if someone were to tell the truth you wouldn't believe it because you would assume they were telling a lie. there for to lie is objectively wrong because otherwise it would defeat its self.
that might not be a perfect example but its the first one i thought of, and i think it gets the general idea across. hope that helps.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1914654' date='Jul 8 2009, 06:32 PM']idk if this was already stated but,
there are absolute (objective) good and evil, and social (subjective) goods and evils. the goods and evils that are subjective are the ones that change according to law place to place era to era. the objective goods and evils are the constant and are agreed on by everyone (unless they are vicious). for a good or evil to be objective it must be one that will not be defeated by its self if its opposite were to replace it. for example to lie is held as an objective evil because if it was a subjective evil it could change to a good. if to lie was considered a good then it is to say that people should lie, and if people should lie instead of not lie then everyone is telling a lies and nobody knows the truth of anything. even if someone were to tell the truth you wouldn't believe it because you would assume they were telling a lie. there for to lie is objectively wrong because otherwise it would defeat its self.
that might not be a perfect example but its the first one i thought of, and i think it gets the general idea across. hope that helps.[/quote]

Ever heard of a white lie?

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914801' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:04 PM']Ever heard of a white lie?[/quote]
a white lie is still a lie. yes we all use it to avoid hurting others feelings or whatever reason. but if the white lie backfires and the person that you told it to questions you about why you told them the white lie then you have to com clean with your reason for it and hope they dont get upset or tell another lie to cover up why you told them the white lie in the first place. and yes i have seen people get upset because of a white lie that was told to them after they realized they were lied to and then even more ticked after hearing the reason for the white lie. so white lie is covered by the example.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1914819' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:16 PM']a white lie is still a lie. yes we all use it to avoid hurting others feelings or whatever reason. but if the white lie backfires and the person that you told it to questions you about why you told them the white lie then you have to com clean with your reason for it and hope they dont get upset or tell another lie to cover up why you told them the white lie in the first place. and yes i have seen people get upset because of a white lie that was told to them after they realized they were lied to and then even more ticked after hearing the reason for the white lie. so white lie is covered by the example.[/quote]

I think there are plenty of instances of when lying is permissable. For example, if someone inviaded your home and demanded to know where the secret safe is, telling them there is no secret safe wouldn't be immoral. Or if the same person made you promise you wouldn't tell the police if they let you go, and you did, that wouldn't be immoral - because you would have a greater responsiblity to tell the police and warn/protect society. Lying, deception and manipulation can also be effective in interrogation situations which can be used to extract the truth and put dangerous criminals behind bars. White lies are ok, so long they are done tactfully. For example, if a fat girl asked you if she were fat, you could say something like she is just big boned, or some other evasive half truth because the only thing worse than lying to her is telling her the truth. Of course, there is the chance it could backfire, but more often than not the truth backfires also.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kafka' post='1914438' date='Jul 8 2009, 03:27 PM']notice how I tactfully used 'Nazis' instead of 'Hitler' in my above post.

[/quote]
Hitler was a Nazi?

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']I think there are plenty of instances of when lying is permissable. For example, if someone inviaded your home and demanded to know where the secret safe is, telling them there is no secret safe wouldn't be immoral.[/quote]

i think you are thinking that i believe that because lying is an objective wrong that im saying that there is never a situation like the one here where telling a lie isnt going to be benaficial to your survival/better being. there are different levels of evil/wrong. sometimes you are stuck in a situation where your options each include some level of wrong action, you then have to choose which is going to be the lesser evil and go with it.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']Or if the same person made you promise you wouldn't tell the police if they let you go, and you did, that wouldn't be immoral - because you would have a greater responsiblity to tell the police and warn/protect society.[/quote]

again see above.
on the whole lesser evil another example is you borrow your friends gun to go hunting and he wants it back so that he can go kill someone with it. you know his intention for wanting it back. if you dont give it back its stealing because you are keeping something that is not lawfully yours but if you give it back you are responsible for giving him the murder weapon. you have to decide between technically stealing his gun, or allowing him to go kill someone with it. keeping the gun is the lesser evil. in the same way telling a lie to a robber is a lesser evil than letting him get away.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']Lying, deception and manipulation can also be effective in interrogation situations which can be used to extract the truth and put dangerous criminals behind bars. White lies are ok, so long they are done tactfully. For example, if a fat girl asked you if she were fat, you could say something like she is just big boned, or some other evasive half truth because the only thing worse than lying to her is telling her the truth. Of course, there is the chance it could backfire, but more often than not the truth backfires also.[/quote]

so yes to lie can be useful and even have a less bad outcome than telling the truth, but because to universalize lying as a good would defeat it self you can say to lie is an objective bad even though at times to tell a lie might be your best option.

but to wrap this up i did state that the lie analogy wasn't perfect and that it was to just get the general point across (if i didn't before i meant to so i know i have now) i hope that made sense. if not ask me what i meant. i really rather not debate as to the objectiveness of something though.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914094' date='Jul 7 2009, 11:34 PM']A murdering rapist could say "oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of god, beaver dam god". I'm not really following you here. People always have a choice, if you choose evil, you choose the consquences (hell or jail). Nobody is forced to agree with rules and laws of society, but if you don't like it stiff bickies.[/quote]

With God morals are objective, without God morals are subjective and mere opinion.

Evil? You're denial of God, denies evil. In your mindset, just as God would be make believe, your morals, ideas of good and evil are also in a very similar way make believe.

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914899' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:25 PM']With God morals are objective, without God morals are subjective and mere opinion.

Evil? You're denial of God, denies evil. In your mindset, just as God would be make believe, your morals, ideas of good and evil are also in a very similar way make believe.[/quote]

Morals don't even appear to be objective even with god. In the bible there are plenty of examples of genocide, rape and murder all in gods name and apparently good and wholesome. Any act of evil of can be justified by invoking gods name, like terrorism. Don't trust it.

The definition of evil is 'that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune' and obviously there is plenty of that so evil exists just not the kind of mystical devil inspired evil people think of.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1914876' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:09 PM']i think you are thinking that i believe that because lying is an objective wrong that im saying that there is never a situation like the one here where telling a lie isnt going to be benaficial to your survival/better being. there are different levels of evil/wrong. sometimes you are stuck in a situation where your options each include some level of wrong action, you then have to choose which is going to be the lesser evil and go with it.[/quote]

Catholics don't believe in concept of "lesser evil" as it implies moral relativism. In Catholicsm lying is always wrong and sinful even if it's done to protect yourself and your family.

[quote]again see above.
on the whole lesser evil another example is you borrow your friends gun to go hunting and he wants it back so that he can go kill someone with it. you know his intention for wanting it back. if you dont give it back its stealing because you are keeping something that is not lawfully yours but if you give it back you are responsible for giving him the murder weapon. you have to decide between technically stealing his gun, or allowing him to go kill someone with it. keeping the gun is the lesser evil. in the same way telling a lie to a robber is a lesser evil than letting him get away.[/quote]

Again this is moral relativism. Stealing is always wrong, there are no exceptions. The person must always choose the non sinful action and let god handle the rest. I think this situation a good argument could be made for handing the gun into and informing the police, you're not stealing with weapon as the owner has forfeited his right to own one if he intends to use it for harm. Giving him back the gun would be assisting him with his sin and that would be sinful.

[quote]so yes to lie can be useful and even have a less bad outcome than telling the truth, but because to universalize lying as a good would defeat it self you can say to lie is an objective bad even though at times to tell a lie might be your best option.[/quote]

But then you're not saying a lie is an objective bad. You're saying it's a conditional bad, but sometimes it's ok, which is moral subjectivism and relativism. Saying a lie is usually bad is not the same as saying it is objectively bad, because when you say it's an objective bad you're saying it's immutable and there's nothing we can do to change it.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']Catholics don't believe in concept of "lesser evil" as it implies moral relativism. In Catholicsm lying is always wrong and sinful even if it's done to protect yourself and your family.[/quote]

not true. we hold that there are two levels of sin venial and mortal. then within the venial sins some are graver than others.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']Again this is moral relativism. Stealing is always wrong, there are no exceptions. The person must always choose the non sinful action and let god handle the rest. I think this situation a good argument could be made for handing the gun into and informing the police, you're not stealing with weapon as the owner has forfeited his right to own one if he intends to use it for harm. Giving him back the gun would be assisting him with his sin and that would be sinful.[/quote]

so you rather give the gun back and then call the police in hope that they can prevent him from killing in time rather than keep hold of it and prevent it yourself?

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']But then you're not saying a lie is an objective bad. You're saying it's a conditional bad, but sometimes it's ok, which is moral subjectivism and relativism. Saying a lie is usually bad is not the same as saying it is objectively bad, because when you say it's an objective bad you're saying it's immutable and there's nothing we can do to change it.[/quote]

no that is not what i am saying. something can be an objective bad and avoided as much as possible but have a time where it is your best option. for instance during ww2 people that housed the Jews broke their moral obligation to follow the law and lied to the Nazis. To follow the law though would mean assisting in the killing of innocent lives. you are more morally obligated to protect the lives of the innocent and put yourself at risk than to follow a law saying that you need to turn them in.

i know that there is nothing that i or anyone else is going to be able to say on this subject, or on any other, to convince you of any view point other than what you already hold. so im done. may God bless you and guide you.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1915459' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:49 AM']not true. we hold that there are two levels of sin venial and mortal. then within the venial sins some are graver than others.[/quote]

Catholics do not hold that venial sins should be committed over mortal sins. Evil must be avoided altogether. If you have to choose evil, the devil has won.

[quote]so you rather give the gun back and then call the police in hope that they can prevent him from killing in time rather than keep hold of it and prevent it yourself?[/quote]

I'd give the gun to police and let them deal with it.

[quote]no that is not what i am saying. something can be an objective bad and avoided as much as possible but have a time where it is your best option. for instance during ww2 people that housed the Jews broke their moral obligation to follow the law and lied to the Nazis. To follow the law though would mean assisting in the killing of innocent lives. you are more morally obligated to protect the lives of the innocent and put yourself at risk than to follow a law saying that you need to turn them in.[/quote]

Lying to the Nazi's is still a sin. Lying is a sin period, it's never justified. When you say that sometimes lying is OK, that's moral relativism and the church strictly forbids that.

[quote]i know that there is nothing that i or anyone else is going to be able to say on this subject, or on any other, to convince you of any view point other than what you already hold. so im done. may God bless you and guide you.[/quote]

may Allah do the same to you.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915416' date='Jul 9 2009, 07:54 AM']Morals don't even appear to be objective even with god. In the bible there are plenty of examples of genocide, rape and murder all in gods name and apparently good and wholesome. Any act of evil of can be justified by invoking gods name, like terrorism. Don't trust it.

The definition of evil is 'that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune' and obviously there is plenty of that so evil exists just not the kind of mystical devil inspired evil people think of.[/quote]

Your still using words that by your theology are make believe. Your definition is your subjective opinion. You want to reject the Christian God, but hold on to Christian Morality, like many atheist today who are not true to their beliefs.

Like many atheist you ask a very good question or dance around it anyway. If God exist why does He allow evil? Well if there is no God there is no evil you must come to grasp with this part of your theology if you are to be a true atheist.

As for the answer to your question, one can not vandalize their own property. This is how God does not murder. Also the people that God destroyed or had destroyed where the wicked.