Which according to Vinnie – and the evidence – means it is arbitrary. Human nature is capable of, and has done so, forming societies where the highest virtue is to trap a close friend into betraying others, where placing newborn female infants out for wolves to devour is see not merely as acceptable but as proper, and where throwing acid in the face of someone who compromised ‘honor’ is not just tolerated but expected, even demanded.
Because, according to the Bible, at least some commands are not derived from objective morality, which can be seen because they contradict more basic principles in the Bible. It took centuries, but even before Christ came rabbis had figured out that slavery was nigh unto blasphemy, not because of their subjective view but because it objectively spits in the face of the principle that we are made in Yahwehs’s image.
Because they are crappy candidates for deity, acting in arbitrary and cruel fashion towards those closest to them in Creation – and because according to reasoned philosophy, they’re nothing more than bad servants of actual deity.
I would call those human behaviors. I would say that part of our nature is our intellect and rationality. We can choose to go against what our nature intends for us. So in that sense we are capable of engaging in moral and immoral activity.
It is not any more subjective than saying that a human heart barely pumping blood is bad. I defined morality in relation to the ends or purpose of human nature. I do believe human flourishing is a part of that but I did not define morality as “human well being.” As I noted to you below, the is/ought issue is completely erased by Thomists. “From an A-T perspective, again, granting final causality, “is” and “ought” are not separate. To be a “good” heart is to pump blood. To be a “bad” heart is to fail at it.” To be a good vehicle is to reliably and safely transport people from A to B. To be a good human is to (insert the object ends, telos, or purpose nature intends for us).
The triangle analogy is only to show you that a triangle has objective features that define it (plane figure with three line segments. . . ). I never said drawing a triangle is a moral issue. You are saying the artist is constructing “a sloppily drawn triangle.” Whether intentional or not, it is an objective fact that is a sloppily drawn or skewed triangle. But this is not a moral issue. You are confusing artistic merit with the nature or essence of triangularity and have admitted my point.
Speaking of infectious diseases, they have an end much like a heart. So curing the person is in one sense, “bad” for the virus but good for the human. But a virus does not have rationality or free will. We alone are capable of morality.
It’s not good to allow people to die of infectious diseases. But is it morally bad or neutral to let nature take its course? Even here we can say this would be objectively bad. It goes against our ends or purpose. Humans are social. We rely on others for survival, development and education from infancy. We are fashioned by nature to live in communities. Nature intends us to help one another. That is an objective fact.
The Thomist says objective morality is tied into human nature. Infectious diseases are not human nature. The Thomist does not consider every animal behavior a part of human nature. That animals engage in actions that humans would consider rape, murder, or filial cannibalism, does not make them a part of human nature or something morally acceptable.
And I am say saying morality is based the nature or essence of what it means to be a human which is an objective part of reality just as having three straight sides and angles that add up to 180 degrees is what makes a triangle. A man may want to rape a woman. Are you saying wanting something makes it moral to that individual?
Then accept final causality and become a natural law theorist. You are using nature is a sense I don’t fully agree with based on previous thoughts you’ve articulated . But it almost appears as if we are dipping into the same well. You are just using a very leaky bucket. Of all our conversations on morality, those last two sencenses might be the most important of them all.
I gave you a car analogy and the Michael Jordan comment. They are meant to and do established that one you know the ends of a human, you know what is objectively moral or immoral. You can dispute the ends I have articulated thus far but it’s anyone’s right to dispute objective facts about reality.
You can subjectively say whatever you want. And anyone can subjectively agree or disagree with you. As I said. Your standard for “moral advance” boils down to “people agreeing with you.” When society or people become more like you and share your beliefs, you call it advance. Subjective morality comes with a blatant narcism when progress is defined in terms of Does the sun also revolve around you? There is a blatant narcism in subjectivism of defining process
That is part of the problem all along. You think I am trying to sneak in “thus everything the Bible says is true” and give you a specific list of moral commands you should agree with me on or you are immoral. How I interpret the Bible is here. Furthermore, morality is one of the reasons I reject Biblical inerrancy. From section 1 of 8 on why I reject inerrancy.
[1] Errors in the Bible:
The simplest reason I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is because I think there are examples of legitimate human errors in the Bible. I believe there are internal contradictions in the Bible pertaining to events, numbers, figures, narrative details, theology, and even morality. I also believe there are external contradictions . . .
I am not a proponent of a stringent version of sola scripture nor do I even accept sola scripture in any form. We have two books: the Bible and nature. Moral law is enough to render certain parts of scripture incorrect in what they sanction, condone or command people to do just as science is enough to render some Biblical statements or assumptions mistaken or outdated. I would use a two-prong approach when discussing with Christians though. Moral law in conjunction with Jesus.
Christians who tell atheists they have no grounds for judging the morality of the Bible are partially correct. They are correct because the atheist usually embraces a subjective morality. So they really have nothing objective to say. But these Christians are incorrect because we do have objective grounds from nature for questioning the inherent goodness of any command in any sacred scripture. Let that sink in.
@Roy Try me. What’s your background? I was raised baptist. Seriously questioned my faith when I learned about evolution in high school. Never was really satisfied with the standard apologetics arguments. I eventually came to realize that given the assumptions most Western Christians have about the nature of reality (derived from Greek philosophy and merged into theology by the early Church) that Atheist’s like you are actually perfectly reasonable. Your arguments are simply better then those of the apologists from Augustine to Aquinas to William Lane Craig. It’s all garbage and an embarrassment to Christianity. But God exists nonetheless.