What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

Humans corrupt things. Governments corrupt things even faster. If it were just up l
to that I would say you might be right.

...

That said, here is my rationale to the contrary:
If the God of the Old Testament is the same God as of the New, then there are two things to be considered:

1) God works often through providence. He also is a God who reveals himself to humanity, through the Bible. Therefore, what is there to say that God could not have orchestrated the councils and events of determining canon such that the correct Gospel is given to us? We have thus far ignored the omnipotence of God, and I think it wise to return to the fact that God has all power, and is capable of such a thing. There is a spiritual aspect to this that cannot be overlooked.

The God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God of the New Testament. One was jealous, bloodthirsty, a destroyer. One was loving, forgiving and humble. Night and day. For this reason many in the ancient world believed that the god of the Old Testament was Satan, and the god of the New was "God." These were the dualists. They believed that everything of the material world was evil, everything of the spiritual world, beautiful and godly. Therefore they hated material things, including their bodies. Many of the gnostic sects of Northern Africa in the 200s and 300s believed in this. As did the Cathars of southern France before they were exterminated in a horrible genocide, I think in the 13th century.

1) God works often through providence. He also is a God who reveals himself to humanity, through the Bible. Therefore, what is there to say that God could not have orchestrated the councils and events of determining canon such that the correct Gospel is given to us? We have thus far ignored the omnipotence of God, and I think it wise to return to the fact that God has all power, and is capable of such a thing. There is a spiritual aspect to this that cannot be overlooked.

So you are assuming God is an independent entity, some outsider, foreign to you. I don't.

I believe that we are all part of God. God is the whole. I guess I am with Hegel, in thinking that we are the consciousness of the universe, and as we mature spiritually, the universe starts to know itself. God is the universe and we are part of it. We are God. Everything is God. History is the story of God. Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, these were special people, who were able to experience God directly, and they tried to explain it to us, but we could not understand it. Language could not convey their reality they experienced. The religions we have are humanity's imperfect attempts to systematize the ineffable, the experience of God.

Regarding the difference between God in the Old and New testaments, in the Old, sin had only two solutions: death or sacrifice. So God promised to give a sacrifice that would ultimately reconcile humanity to Him. In the New Testament, we do not see the wrath of God as much (although we do still see it in certain cases) because that wrath was transferred in the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. The justice aspect of it is still there, and so is the mercy, but instead of the consequences of sin carried out on humanity, they are carried out on Jesus. This is why the crucifixion and resurrection are so crucial. But God exhibits the same qualities - justice, mercy, grace, a want for His people to be perfect and holy, etc.
As for dualism, believing that the God of the Old Testament is Satan, there is a lot of contradiction to the Old Testament that must be done to come to that conclusion.

And yes, I am claiming that God created everything. Both Old and New Testaments state that very clearly. He has power over all, but whereas He is in all, your claim is that God is limited to nature, ourselves, and the universe. My claim is that He created all of it, and thus is not confined to it.

[CaptainFritz28]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

Which is why the Bible says to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. That is what a Christian response is to those who disagree with or wish to get rid of Christianity. Love.

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

But their life is just as valuable as mine. I am willing to kill someone who I believe will then go on to kill others, but I choose to value others above myself.

[CaptainFritz28]

Which is why the Bible says to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. That is what a Christian response is to those who disagree with or wish to get rid of Christianity. Love.

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

[Jamiet99uk]

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

The Lord speaketh unto him personally.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

The Lord speaketh unto him personally.

After 2000+ years of Christian theology and moral philosophy we can just shut it all down. Close the Bible colleges, fire the pope, burn the Aquinas books. Captain Fritz knows exactly how to interpret the Bible so no further moral or religious reasoning is required.

[Johnny Big Horse]

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

Captain, No! So if you knew your enemy was coming to kill you tomorrow, you would pray for their souls and let it happen! No. Your life was a gift from God and you must cherish it.

[Johnny Big Horse]

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

Uh oh, we have another contender. Very good point, and the thing is, you are making the same point the captain made before, but using it against him.

This is a great thread.

[mOctave]

Your claim that secular morality is subject to majority rule or might-makes-right oversimplifies and misrepresents the nature of ethical theories like Universal Human Rights, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory. These frameworks are not arbitrary; they are grounded in rational thought, empathy, and a collective understanding of human well-being. These aren't whims of the majority; they are the culmination of centuries of philosophical debate, rooted in logic, empathy, and a collective aspiration for human flourishing. They are no more "might-makes-right" than Christian moral philosophy.

I also strongly agree that the Bible (along with every other book or document ever written) is subjective. However, I also think that "rational thought, empathy, and a collective understanding of human well-being" are either divinely given or a might/majority-makes right system.

In the case of "collective understanding of human well-being," for example, the operative word is "collective." We never bother to listen to the people on the fringes who disagree with this understanding, and so it is very much a majority-makes-right system. Now, it is fairly generally accepted that larger numbers of people tend to be less wrong on average, despite often being very wrong on an individual level, so this isn't necessary a bad thing.

As for rational thought, may I present you with Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, erto sum)? This is a splendid example of how limited rational thought is. With his only axiom being his own rationality of thought, he could not prove anything more than his own existence. It was only when he accepted the existence of a god that he could draw any other conclusions. With rational thought, you have to accept some things as fundamentally true axioms, but if you do so, then you cannot have an ultimate and unassailable proof. And, your axioms will only be accepted as valid by anyone else if they are their own axioms, meaning that rational thought is also a majority-makes-right system of defining morality.

As for empathy, I pointed out above that it is either inherent in people (and so bestowed there either by God or evolution), or nurtured, in which case it is a majority-makes-right system at the population level.

Of course, even if we accept a theistic moral philosophy and believe that all our morality should be handled by God, that is no less of a might-makes-right system! After all, God is generally defined in a theistic religion by being (a) always right and (b) almost entirely omnipotent.

Therefore, no matter where we derive our morality from, it is still might-makes-right system. If it is decided by the majority, it is because the majority has the most power. If it is decided by an innate human goodness, it is because those around us or those who created us "want" us to have that goodness. If it is passed to us by a divine power, we accept it because of that god's power over us. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but—as I see it—it's the way it is.

[Johnny Big Horse]

wait, what? Yes, social customs, and laws are might right, but an individual's morality comes from within. If one chooses to be a murderer and finds virtue in it, as those school shooters did, then that is their morality, right? So where does might makes right work with this?

[mOctave]

wait, what? Yes, social customs, and laws are might right, but an individual's morality comes from within. If one chooses to be a murderer and finds virtue in it, as those school shooters did, then that is their morality, right? So where does might makes right work with this?

Where does a typically moral person's empathy and human decency originally come from? I see three possible cases here:
(1) They grew up around similarly empathetic people, and (as young, impressionable children) adopted that morality,
(2) Some divine power gave them their moral nature, or
(3) They inherited their morality, either genetically or through some other means, from their biological parents.

Of course, it could be a mixture of any or all of these three, but in each case it still boils down to might-makes-right.

In case 1, it is the people who surrounded them as children who had the power to decide their morality. Because most of the people around them were had a certain set of morals, they also grew up to have many of the same morals. They didn't decide their morality for themselves, but it was those around them who did, hence majority-makes-right.

In case 2, the divine power is the might. It is not a human morality, but it is still a might-makes-right morality.

In case 3, they only had the chance to inherit this morality because their parents were successful enough in their life to survive and mate. If those parents had not shared the morality of the majority of those around them, it would be less likely that they would have ever had the chance to have children, and so on an evolutionary timescale this also becomes a majority-makes-right morality.

Then of course, majority-makes-right is really just might-makes-right in disguise, hence my comment.

School shooters, are slightly different. They may be influenced by case 1 and 2, but they work in the face of case 3—after all, violent crimes do not typically lead to having lots of healthy children. However, their morality still comes from the same sources: the people who have power over them. Nothing originally "comes from within." We either receive souls from somewhere else, or we grow solely from our parents. Of course, it is possible that our souls grow somewhere and then come to inhabit our bodies, but they still must be grown in some way. In any case, "within" must first come from outside of us, and those influences are a might-makes-right system.

[CaptainFritz28]

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

Captain, No! So if you knew your enemy was coming to kill you tomorrow, you would pray for their souls and let it happen! No. Your life was a gift from God and you must cherish it.

Let it happen? No. If I knew they were out to get me I'd get to where they can't get me. And if I couldn't, then sure I'd defend myself, but not to the extent of taking their life, unless they threaten someone else's life. I do cherish my life, but I cherish others' more.

[CaptainFritz28]

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

Because it isn't Old Testament advice. It's a Jewish saying, supposedly. Not in the Bible. Killing someone before they even attempt to harm you is murder, which is directly against the sixth commandment. And anyways, as I said, it doesn't require interpreting to read.

Matthew 3:43-44 (Jesus Himself speaking)
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

See? No interpretation needed.

[CaptainFritz28]

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

The Lord speaketh unto him personally.

Once again, it doesn't require an interpretation to read. Unless you needed divine guidance to partake your daily newspaper?

[CaptainFritz28]

This idea that he gave of the Jewish approach is very clearly anti-Biblical. It doesn't require an interpretation to read that the Bible says to love your enemies.

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

Uh oh, we have another contender. Very good point, and the thing is, you are making the same point the captain made before, but using it against him.

This is a great thread.

Difference is, my point is that Atheism gives no standard to tell who is right. I'm claiming that reading the Bible is the standard to resolve any conflicts of moral opinion. That's why Atheism fails and Christianity does not. Christianity gives a solution for differing morals, but Atheism leaves it to each to discern their own morality, and gives no guidance where there is conflict.

[CaptainFritz28]

wait, what? Yes, social customs, and laws are might right, but an individual's morality comes from within. If one chooses to be a murderer and finds virtue in it, as those school shooters did, then that is their morality, right? So where does might makes right work with this?

Where does a typically moral person's empathy and human decency originally come from? I see three possible cases here:
(1) They grew up around similarly empathetic people, and (as young, impressionable children) adopted that morality,
(2) Some divine power gave them their moral nature, or
(3) They inherited their morality, either genetically or through some other means, from their biological parents.

Of course, it could be a mixture of any or all of these three, but in each case it still boils down to might-makes-right.

In case 1, it is the people who surrounded them as children who had the power to decide their morality. Because most of the people around them were had a certain set of morals, they also grew up to have many of the same morals. They didn't decide their morality for themselves, but it was those around them who did, hence majority-makes-right.

In case 2, the divine power is the might. It is not a human morality, but it is still a might-makes-right morality.

In case 3, they only had the chance to inherit this morality because their parents were successful enough in their life to survive and mate. If those parents had not shared the morality of the majority of those around them, it would be less likely that they would have ever had the chance to have children, and so on an evolutionary timescale this also becomes a majority-makes-right morality.

Then of course, majority-makes-right is really just might-makes-right in disguise, hence my comment.

School shooters, are slightly different. They may be influenced by case 1 and 2, but they work in the face of case 3—after all, violent crimes do not typically lead to having lots of healthy children. However, their morality still comes from the same sources: the people who have power over them. Nothing originally "comes from within." We either receive souls from somewhere else, or we grow solely from our parents. Of course, it is possible that our souls grow somewhere and then come to inhabit our bodies, but they still must be grown in some way. In any case, "within" must first come from outside of us, and those influences are a might-makes-right system.

This is a good way of putting it. Of course, I find that option 2 makes the most sense, along with a good dose of option 1, but you summarize here one of the things I've been driving at for a while.

[CaptainFritz28]

@Jamiet99uk

I would ask one other additional question. I apologize for having two questions about your response, but this is a long conversation and I have not looked at much of it.

The empathy that you referenced, do you believe that people are born with it, or do you think that it is something that is cultivated as one grows up?

Both.

I feel like an element of it is innate, but that it can be nurtured.

I agree with you here. Only difference is where we claim it comes from innately.

[CaptainFritz28]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

How about, say, school shooters, certain Islamic groups, assassins, revolutionaries, the Nazis, extremist Communists, the Vikings, gang members, or any other murderer at all?

Answer the question or I'll assume you don't have an answer and that you concede this.

[CaptainFritz28]

In this context I want to point out that opinions of people about abortion differ widely.

Yeah, I was going to chime in on that as well. The definition of murder is a dicey one. I believe, and you can correct me if I am wrong Jamiet99uk, that you are pro choice? In the opinion of some, you are that person who supports murder that you want to debate.

Yes I am pro-choice.

No I do not regard that as being pro-murder.

I would prefer to avoid going off on this particular tangent right now.

While I disagree with you here, I also agree that this is not the debate we are having, and it doesn't matter to the case I'm making. I was not referring to you or anyone who is pro-choice, although in a different debate that contention could be made. It is unnecessary here.

[CaptainFritz28]

I did not say that.

Then why did you base the entirety of your last post around statistics of majority to minority?

That is what you were doing. I was highlighting the silliness of your case.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was contending that your morals rest on the majority agreeing with you, which I view as just as silly as you seem to.