@moderators, can this be put in a separate thread? It’s diverged far off-topic and should probably have a thread of its own.
Of course. The existence of both angels and fallen angels is affirmed by Jesus Himself, but if someone rejects His authority and/or does not believe in His divinity, they may well also reject the existence of demons.
Sure, it would be harder to reject their existence if one had direct experiences—for example, a genuine case of demonic possession that cannot be explained by mental illness.
But for anyone who has not had such experiences, it ultimately comes down to the authority they assign to the Gospels and to Jesus.
We don’t know what the original text was. So some of the words have passed away.
History is full of examples of extremely rich and powerful people being murdered, including by each other.
If you can’t connect the welfare of your family to the nature of the society they live in, or recognise that others will tend to treat you and your family the same way that you treat them, there’s no further answer I can give.
If you want to be a sociopathic selfish opportunist, I can’t stop you. But you might want to look into research that has been done on cooperation vs defection, especially w.r.t. the long-term stability of groups.
Your scenario of complete immunity from repercussion is an unrealistic fantasy.
I mean John goes out of his way to tell us that “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be.”
But none of the most important words have been lost. Certainly not for Christians, who believe that the Holy Spirit—who is God—has safeguarded the transmission of those teachings.
If I can become the next Murdoch or Rothschild, it may be a risk worth taking. And in any case, why would it matter? If I were to be murdered, my unavoidable fate would merely be anticipated by years—or decades—not even milliseconds from a cosmic perspective.
Not to mention that the more powerful friends I have (and in this scenario, I have very powerful friends), the less likely it is that I would be murdered in the first place. And even if I were, it would not be a significant issue either way: I am already condemned to death in that scenario; it would simply arrive sooner.
2 Likes
We have a tendency to look at matters from our western culture that is individualistic. What we may forget is that the ‘flourishing’ or ‘harm’ depends on whose flourishing or harm we are talking about.
Many ancient cultures and even modern cultures in the East value the good of the society or family more than the good of the individual. Also the ancient Hebrews (OT people) had such a culture. The logic behind this kind of thinking seems rational: when the benefit and future of many conflicts with the interests of one person, we should weigh the good of many more than the good of a single person. Simple ethical cost-benefit analysis.
There are practical problems with this kind of ‘society first’ thinking: those making the decisions do not often truly act for the benefit of the whole society but try to advance the benefit of few (a leading group) or one (the person himself). So, the basically healthy idea is seldom true in the real life.
Even within the individualistic western culture, there are conflicts of interests between persons. To mention a potentially flammable example, there is a conflict of interest between a woman and her fetus. Should we put more emphasis on the rights of the woman to ‘do with my body what I want’, or the rights of the unborn child?
I do not tell what would be the ‘ethically correct’ answer, just point to the fact that there are such conflicts of interests.
7 Likes
In this scenario I would become so rich that we could go anywhere in the world and live like kings, if it’s not clear.
I was talking about becoming a multibillionaire. From a purely earthly perspective, a multibillionaire would live a great life in almost any society—except perhaps in a world devastated by nuclear fallout or something comparable.
These are good examples of what I had in mind when I said
[Emphasis added.]
1 Like
I just said that in that specific scenario I would have no good reasons not to.
Again: if I can accumulate enough wealth for my family to live in the most beautiful places in the world for the next ten generations—if I can amass a fortune of, say, 24 billion dollars—do you really think I would be meaningfully affected by the ‘long-term stability’ of my society?
We could go anywhere in the world and live like kings.
Complete immunity does not exist, in the sense that anyone can be killed and/or harmed. But people who have literally trampled on countless individuals’ rights and souls—and yet have thrived—do exist and have existed. Many of them.
Job 21:7: “Why do the wicked live on, growing old and increasing in power?
There are countless wicked people in this world who, by virtue of being obscenely rich and powerful, are treated like literal kings—both they and their families—despite often having committed horrific acts to achieve that status. It’s simply a reality of this world; it’s not a matter of debate, unfortunately. I wish it was. I really do.
A subjective standard is a standard.
Given the numerous claimed objective standards that contradict each other, claiming an objective standard doesn’t get around this problem. When people claim there is an objective standard what they appear to be doing is trying to give more weight to their subjective standard of morality.
1 Like
That’s a subjective standard.
This debate seems hampered by a lack of clarity on what “objective” and “subjective” moralities are. Coyne gave a sensible definition of “objective” morality as being the stance that something can be discerned to be “morally wrong” through reasoning about facts about the world, rather than by reference to human opinion.
If morality were objective, it would have to be conceivable that the statement “George’s actions were wrong and he deserves to be punished” would be true even if every human in the world were of the opinion, “George’s actions seem fine to me, perhaps even laudable”.
Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
If morality were objective then morality could be explained independently of human opinion. That morality doesn’t exist. Instead, we have a subjective morality based on human nature.
That is a subjective opinion based on the wants and needs of humans.
Weasel words. Just because our subjective opinions on morality exist in an objective reality does not suddenly make those subjective opinions into objective ones.
Yes, it’s the standard we all use today.
Then where is the objective standard that exists independently of humans?
1 Like
I would criticize them because their actions violate my subjective sense of morality.
You can’t argue against it, however. There is only one objective standard of morality, so how can you argue against what the Aztec’s did?
Or are you saying morality is arbitrary? It just depends on what religion you happen to belong to?
It scares me that there are people in the world whose only reason for not harming others is because they are commanded not to do so by their religious leaders.
1 Like
What an absolutely terrible argument from incredulity. This is on par with the similar way creationists rejection of evolution. I think I will add that one to the moral q and an at some point. It is also one that is not very strong since as Cole Hellier tells us, the disagreement is not that significant.
Most humans are in broad agreement on almost all of the basics of morality. After all “people are the same wherever you go”. Most law codes overlap strongly, such that we can readily live in a foreign country with only minor adjustment for local customs. A psychopathic child killer’s opinion is not regarded as “just as good” by most of us, and if we decide morality by a broad consensus — and that, after all, is how we do decide morality — then we arrive at strong communal moral codes.
Even slavers believed in “loving their neighbors.” They just saw African Americans as sub-human property so they didn’t classify as neighbors. So even though there is a great diversity of moral outlooks, there is still a core of agreed upon principles by most moral systems. Let me forestall a reply…I am not saying might makes right but that there is not as great a diversity on underlying principles as you claim. Given morality is an objective part of reality, this is expected.
This latest response appears to be a hasty last ditch effort at maintaining a believe in subjective morality that really has been throughly discredited in this thread. An obvious basis that both atheists and Christians can agree upon for objective morality has been given. If you want to continue to define moral good or moral progress as “agreeing with you” after all that has been said, that is your business.
Vinnie
1 Like
Moral fact: a real, mind-independent feature of the world.
If morality were objective, it would have to be conceivable that the statement “George’s actions were wrong and he deserves to be punished” would be true even if every human in the world were of the opinion, “George’s actions seem fine to me, perhaps even laudable”.
Correct. If everyone in the world thought the sun was made of cheese, they would be wrong.
I have already articulated that morality is objective and subjective. I certainly accept that some of my moral position are subjective and are based on how I navigate other beliefs. But there is objective morality and we can access it but that doesn’t mean I have a magic 8 ball allowing me to give you a perfectly objective and irrefutable answer to ever moral iusse or problem ever raised. That is narcissistic, like claiming the rest of the world and all of human history is only morally good or has made moral progress when they agree with me. And you have admitted to this being your position. You simply tried to deflect it by saying it is everyone’s position.
It is an empirical fact of existence. Humans are social. Unless you are denying final casualty. That is a different discussion. I have repeatedly said that once you know the ends or telos of a human, we can have objective morality.
That really is about the best you can do given your position has been so thoroughly discredited in here.
No. It’s the standard you use. I am not the center of the universe.
It has been provided you probably a half dozen or so times now. I have repeatedly said that once you know the ends or telos of a human, we can have objective morality. I have given you example after example.
Vinnie
1 Like
And what if not sacrificing children to their gods conflicts with their own subjective morality?
In my view, killing human children is objectively evil, because human beings are made in the image of God and therefore possess infinite worth in His eyes—worth so great that He sacrificed Himself for them. I cannot say the same, for example, of piglets. Do I believe that killing a piglet belongs even remotely in the same moral category as killing a child? Not even close. To borrow a line from Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction: “It ain’t the same friggin’ ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t the same friggin’ sport.” However, Peter Singer would strongly disagree with me—and rightly so, from his point of view—because his worldview leads logically to the conclusions he reaches. He is ballsy enough to acknowledge this and to embrace all the implications that follow from the worldview he has adopted. I consider him as a Satan prophet, but at least I commend him for being rational and ballsy.
So are you saying that you are disturbed by the fact that, according to my subjective sense of morality, it would be completely irrational to prioritize other people’s well-being over my own and that of my loved ones in a scenario where Peter Scully and Gandhi alike end in annihilation regardless—and where human beings are nothing more than complex biological machines, carrying no more inherent value than lower animals?
Well, I’m sorry to have scared you, really, but there is nothing I can do about it.
1 Like
Because the position you are engaging with has defined good as that which agrees with it. That means it’s always perfect no matter what. It is the perfect echo-chamber and generally how fundamentalism operates.
Vinnie
1 Like
I agree. Especially when people can neither explain what the standard consists of nor how they reached it.
1 Like
It’s not an argument from incredulity.
It’s an argument from (lack of) evidence.