Why is Murder Wrong?

[senecadawg2]

sounds interesting...what is title?

ahhh, the title seems like an important bit of information for me to leave out 

The Confession

[bosk1]

No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.

Well, that's all well and good.  But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven.  I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.

What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?

First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word.  Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God.  And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.

[ehra]

No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.

Well, that's all well and good.  But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven.  I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.

No one's saying that belief in God isn't proven to be real, Boskypoo.

[theseoafs]

No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.

Well, that's all well and good.  But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven.  I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.

Erm, what? When was that?

[Rathma]

Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.

Dayuuuumn, awesome post.

[rumborak]

What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?

First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word.

Even worse than that, you don't even know whose they are. The accounts have been accounted to Moses and the disciples, but that's all bogus.

Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God.  And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.

Dude, Mohammed runs circles around Jesus in terms of historicity. Same with Buddha.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

[bosk1]

What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?

First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word.

Even worse than that, you don't even know whose they are. The accounts have been accounted to Moses and the disciples, but that's all bogus.

  Well, okay, if that's what you believe, have at it.

Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God.  And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.

Dude, Mohammed runs circles around Jesus in terms of historicity.

rumborak

In terms of knowing who wrote down the original and certainty that all manuscripts are word-for-word duplicates of the original text, sure (well, actually, there is some controversy about that, but I'm willing to put that aside for the moment).  But in terms of multiple, actual eyewitness accounts of God, no.  Not even close.  Not remotely.  There is a huge difference between one dude writing down a bunch of things nobody else is privy to versus a LOT of people over several generations writing down a bunch of things their audiences were often eyewitnesses of, and which reference hundreds of other eyewitnesses who could be talked to to verify their facts.

[Omega]

Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.

Science isn't the totality of existence either.

I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.

[Sigz]

I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.

[bosk1]

I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.

Something about murder being wrong or something.

[AndyDT]

Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.

Science isn't the totality of existence either.

I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.

Can it show that a thought exists or consciousness or will or energy any better than philosophy or spiritual texts?

[kirksnosehair]

I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.

Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.

Science isn't the totality of existence either.

I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.

Do you get it now?

[senecadawg2]

 

On a more serious note...

Bosk- I only have one eyewitness account to back up my own personal religion (Nelsonism, derived from the Church of Nelson A.K.A. CON). It just so happens that the eyewitness is me (Nelson), which poses a question. Would you suggest that since there are more eyewitness accounts in Christianity, that my belief system is invalidated? Surely my own personal account is more valuable to me than all the other accounts from people thousands of years ago. The nature of my religion also contradicts directly with many of the things you assert as 'true', so surely the two religions can't coexist. Are you going to say that my religion (as well as countless others) cannot be true, simply because of stories in the bible? If we are going on eyewitness accounts, I'm going to have to say that I myself am a more credible source than Moses and the rest of your prophets.

This is tricky...

[Ryzee]

I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.

I posed this question a bit earlier.  My suspicion, and apparently a few others agree with me, is that it's supposed to blow the minds of all non-believers so they realize how wrong and foolish they've been to question the existence of God, or something like that.

I think another, less intentional but much more productive point has been to creep me the fuck out.  This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots.  It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.

[Gorille85]

GOOOOD IS DEAD

AND NOOOO ONE CARES

IF THERE IS A HELL

I'LL SEEEEE YOU THERE

[bosk1]

Bosk- I only have one eyewitness account to back up my own personal religion (Nelsonism, derived from the Church of Nelson A.K.A. CON). It just so happens that the eyewitness is me (Nelson), which poses a question. Would you suggest that since there are more eyewitness accounts in Christianity, that my belief system is invalidated? Surely my own personal account is more valuable to me than all the other accounts from people thousands of years ago. The nature of my religion also contradicts directly with many of the things you assert as 'true', so surely the two religions can't coexist. Are you going to say that my religion (as well as countless others) cannot be true, simply because of stories in the bible? If we are going on eyewitness accounts, I'm going to have to say that I myself am a more credible source than Moses and the rest of your prophets.

This is tricky...

Depends.  If you claim to have spoken to the creator, I need to see and hear irrefutable proof that can be independently corroborated before I will believe it.  That's the standard.  Since I have that, again, from a plethora of witnesses whose accounts are consistent with one another, that's what I have to go with.

[Gorille85]

There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...

[bosk1]

There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...

Of course there is.

[GuineaPig]

There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...

Of course there is.

I and many others have been touched by his noodly appendage.

[Omega]

the bold part is where you lose me, do you have any evidence to back this up?

Relativism is philosophical position which stipulates that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual.

Likewise, moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places; all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.

Relativism states that there is no absolute truth or that truth is merely relative to the individual. Yet relativism is self-refuting; If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true.  If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

Likewise, the statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true.  Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths.  Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

   1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
   2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.

Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or of a crime and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person’s reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral laws....when things go wrong for him.

The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?  Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers.  A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation and be defended.  Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is “I don’t like it.”

Imagine the following, Woody-Allen-esque scenario as a thief enters a jewelry store in the day to scope out the alarm system, cameras, etc. Being this a Woody-Allen-esque scenario, the thief unexpectedly gets into a philosophical conversation with the owner:

Owner: "So,everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute, and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society.  But there is no absolute right and wrong."

Thief: "That is a very interesting perspective. I was brought up believing there was a God, and that there was right and wrong.  But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong, and that we are free to do what we want."
     
The thief leaves the store, returns that night, and breaks in. He disables all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. Then the owner of the store enters through a side door.  The thief pulls out a gun.  The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a mask.

Owner: "Don't shoot me! Please take whatever you want and leave me alone."

Thief: "That is exactly what I plan to do."

Owner: "Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice."

Thief: "That's not good. Because now you also know what I look like, and since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you."
   
Owner: "You cannot do that!"
   
Thief: "Why not?"

Owner: "Because it is not right!"

Thief: "But didn't you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"

Owner: "Yes, but I have a family, children that need me, and a wife."

Thief: "So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong, it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry, but that will not do."

Owner: "But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so."
   
Thief: "As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?"
   
Owner: "Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like.  I swear it!"
   
Thief: "I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance."
   
Owner: "But it is true!  I swear I'll tell no one."
   
Thief: "Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I leave, you will break your so-called promise because your morals and promises are relative.  There is no way I can trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me of that."
   
Owner: "But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!"
   
Thief: "It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself."
   
*The thief shoots the owner and kills him*

is there really any evidence that people who believe in objective morality make different moral decisions than people who do not believe in objective morality?

That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity. This thread isn't meant to argue "theists are more moral people".

The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?
The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?
The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?
The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?

and if you can't see a difference in the way people act with or without believing in objective morality is knowing it really that important? of is it a (fun) philosophical exercise?

How one acts in a given worldview and its validity are two separate things. For example, for a moral relativist, there would be no objective reason why him killing someone would be wrong, but that doesn't mean that he will simply go around killing people because it is not wrong. Again, this is missing the point.

Sorry for the essay.

[theseoafs]

Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.

[eric42434224]

Proof god exists. 

I would love to hear what proof exists.  "Eyewitness accounts" from book from long ago arent "proof".  If that were the requirement, there would be just as much "proof" for UFO's.  Heck, UFO's would have even more proof with all the vidoes out there.  Maybe you have a video of god?

And to use fossil records to show the Flood happened?  Bosk, it appears clear to me you are way to vested in your religious beliefs to be rational and unbiased with the obvious scientific evidence.

 

[bosk1]

Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.

I disagree.  First off, "proof" and "100% proof" are not the same thing.  There are degrees of proof.  IMO, if you cannot prove to a satisfactory degree that your religion is true, you should not believe it.

Second, sure there would still be nonbelievers.  People will do and believe what they choose.  That's how it has always been, and I expect that's how it always will be.

Proof god exists. 

I would love to hear what proof exists.  "Eyewitness accounts" from book from long ago arent "proof".  If that were the requirement, there would be just as much "proof" for UFO's.  Heck, UFO's would have even more proof with all the vidoes out there.  Maybe you have a video of god?

And to use fossil records to show the Flood happened?  Bosk, it appears clear to me you are way to vested in your religious beliefs to be rational and unbiased with the obvious scientific evidence.

Well, gosh, I guess you got me there.  Good points all around.  I guess I'll go and recant now.

  Wait...

Yeah, but seriously, people have been making those same sorts of ridiculous claims since the beginning of time.  The evidence is there.  You can do with it what you like.

[yeshaberto]

Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.

the people who were arguing against Jesus in the presence of a now-living Lazarus indicates that we are often more hard-headed than we care to admit

[Sigz]

That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.

And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.

[Omega]

That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.

And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.

So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?

[eric42434224]

The issue is that you can give "evidence" different weight than another would.  Evidence is not proof.  You have to make a judgement call, or a leap of faith, at some point to say it is proven, or that there is proof, the god of the bible exists.
You believe the god of the bible exists.  Thats cool.  But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect.  It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
So, no, there is no proof god exists.  But if you feel there is enough evidence to make that decision for yourself, then that is cool, and I have never said anything otherwise.

[Sigz]

That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.

And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.

So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?

Why wouldn't it be? The only refutation you even put forth was this:

Relativism states that there is no absolute truth or that truth is merely relative to the individual. Yet relativism is self-refuting; If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true.  If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

Likewise, the statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true.  Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths.  Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

   1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
   2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.

But it's irrelevant because we're not talking about universal relativism, simply moral relativism.

[eric42434224]

That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.

And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.

So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?

Yes.  It is just peachy for me and the majority of humans.  Not sure why you can't understand that.

[Omega]

But it's irrelevant because we're not talking about universal relativism, simply moral relativism.

Uh, I think you ought to read what "moral relativism" means again.

[Sigz]

Moral relativism does not rest on the idea that there are no absolute truths anywhere, just that there are no absolute justifications for morality.

[bosk1]

The issue is that you can give "evidence" different weight than another would.  Evidence is not proof.  You have to make a judgement call, or a leap of faith, at some point to say it is proven, or that there is proof, the god of the bible exists.

Yes, exactly.  That's what the definition of the word "proof" means.  It is weighing the evidence and making a judgment call about whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude whether or not something is true. 

But in light of that, the next part of your post makes no sense:

You believe the god of the bible exists.  Thats cool.  But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect.  It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
So, no, there is no proof god exists.  But if you feel there is enough evidence to make that decision for yourself, then that is cool, and I have never said anything otherwise.

No, that is exactly what proof means.  I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.

[Omega]

Moral relativism does not rest on the idea that there are no absolute truths anywhere, just that there are no absolute justifications for morality.

Close enough.

Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places; all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.


The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?  Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers.  A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation and be defended.  Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is "I don’t like it."

[Sigz]

The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?

That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.