Does moral objectivity mean there is a God?

[steveorino 7]

Certain moral codes are universal. Does this imply a supreme being? Try and explain your response if possible.

steveOrino

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Certain moral codes are universal. Does this imply a supreme being? Try and explain your response if possible.

Yes. That's why god made the dems win this go around

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[wmw999 2,543]

I guess I'd have to ask first what moral codes you consider to be universal? Of course, whenever we think of an exception (e.g. it's OK to kill and be killed in war, or honor killing), it's put into a cultural context.

Some of those things are somewhat biological (protecting the young). But I'm not sure about a supreme being driving that. And I believe in God. I'm just not sure if he's the source of morality. Too many people who don't subscribe to the same type of God seem to be able to live lives that are successful and moral within their cultural contexts (including ours).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[steveorino 7]

Murder (not war, not capital punishment, etc) is universally accepted as being immoral.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

No. I'm not sure that any moral codes are universal and even if they were, it would only indicate that humans are similar and share similar moral values not that god hands them out.

In fact, the moral sands shift in time quite readily, think slavery, womens rights, the death penalty, whereas god doesn't change much at all over the ages (2000 years since the last update, 1600 if you're muslim). Morals apear to be independent of god.

[steveorino 7]

To me, certain morals are universal. I gave but one example. There are others. Yes, many moral codes change and are cultural, but there are codes that transcend cultures. How is that possible? I guess to me it makes sense that certain moral codes are universal because they were ingrained in us by God.

steveOrino

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Certain moral codes are universal. Does this imply a supreme being? Try and explain your response if possible.

I thought that Humanism would reject your assertion that certain moral codes are universal. I think Humanism is a religion, however it rejects moral absolutes.

My Socialism 101 class, even back in 1980, was nothing more than an indoctrination in Humanism.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I thought that Humanism would reject your assertion that certain moral codes are universal. I think Humanism is a religion, however it rejects moral absolutes.
.

Has there been a complete culture were murder was accepted as being amoral?

steveOrino

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

I thought that Humanism would reject your assertion that certain moral codes are universal. I think Humanism is a religion, however it rejects moral absolutes.
.

Has there been a complete culture were murder was accepted as being amoral?

You mean moral instead of amoral, right?

Wouldn't the cultures that practiced human sacrifice qualify? Wouldn't cultures that regularly started wars/conquered others solely for the sake of conquest/imperialism qualify? At some periods in our history, the US would fit that description.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Murder (not war, not capital punishment, etc) is universally accepted as being immoral.

Disagree. Murder of slaves for no particular reason is accepted in many cultures (including yours not too very long ago). Ritual human sacrifice was wildly popular in some areas, headhunting still continues today, revenge killings, blood feuds etc. are seen as honorable in many cultures..... I think thats enough to make the point.

So, which moral codes do you think are absolute?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You mean moral instead of amoral, right?

No, I meant amoral (without morals) Has there been a culture w/o morals?

Quote

Wouldn't the cultures that practiced human sacrifice qualify? Wouldn't cultures that regularly started wars/conquered others solely for the sake of conquest/imperialism qualify? At some periods in our history, the US would fit that description.

No even cultures that practiced human sacrifice thought murder was wrong. Their human sacrifice was part of their religion. Culturally they still abhored murder. Similar to our capital punishment debate

USA did commit genecide, but as culture we never thought murder was right. We redefined murder ala genecide as war against the Indians.

steveOrino

[Remster 30]

Quote

Their human sacrifice was part of their religion.

So yes, there is a god, and it likes murder....

Remster

[kallend 2,106]

It implies behavioral evolution in action.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

There are others. Yes, many moral codes change and are cultural, but there are codes that transcend cultures. How is that possible? I guess to me it makes sense that certain moral codes are universal because they were ingrained in us by God.

Not really. Certain patterns of behaviour are common to the human race because they work, and they allow society to work. BTW, I can't think of a single people on the planet that don't habitually get intoxicated, whether it be on alcohol, peyote, mushrooms, toads or whatever is to hand.

Does this mean god wants us to get hammered?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

USA did commit genecide, but as culture we never thought murder was right.

so who are all these casino owners masquerading as?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Disagree. Murder of slaves for no particular reason is accepted in many cultures (including yours not too very long ago).

When your culture redefines what a human is you can commit autrocities such as genecide Native Americans and Slavery (Africans) While these terrible things happened the culture as a whole, never accepted murder as okay -- You may kill your slave or an Indian, (things considered less than human are okay to kill -- a WHOLE different debate) but society never viewed murder as acceptable.

Quote

Ritual human sacrifice was wildly popular in some areas, headhunting still continues today, revenge killings, blood feuds etc. are seen as honorable in many cultures..... I think thats enough to make the point.

I answered the human sacrifice question -- blood fueds are considered part of justice like capital punishment -- different than murder. Even headhunters don't murder their own indescremently -- their act would fall more into the concept of war.

steveOrino

[Remster 30]

Quote

blood fueds are considered part of justice like capital punishment

You need to educate yourself more on the subject of sacrifices. Many sacrifice rituals are not of enemy soldiers, but of their own people. So are you going to change your definition of murder and call that suicide then?

God likes suicides?

Remster

[jakee 1,563]

If you keep redefining words you can succesfully argue whatever the hell you want, but it will be a very hollow victory.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

blood fueds are considered part of justice like capital punishment

You need to educate yourself more on the subject of sacrifices. Many sacrifice rituals are not of enemy soldiers, but of their own people. So are you going to change your definition of murder and call that suicide then?

God likes suicides?

I said it fell into the category of religion. People can justify killing in the name of religion (burning witches, blowing up children, sacrificing virgins) but those same society DON'T tolerate the indescriminant killing among themsleves; something they as a culture would define as murder.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If you keep redefining words you can succesfully argue whatever the hell you want, but it will be a very hollow victory.

I'm not trying to REdefine any word, but hopefully come to a common understanding of what MURDER is (it is not war, it is not capital punishment, etc) . In fact the only way cultures approve of murder is to redefine it. (Jews are subhuman, NA and slaves are subhuman)

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If you keep redefining words you can succesfully argue whatever the hell you want, but it will be a very hollow victory.

I'm not looking for a victory. I'm looking for an intelligent debate.

EDITED TO ADD: Heck, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I simply like a good exchange of thoughts and ideas. IMHO When you try to "keep score" you lose.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

To me, certain morals are universal. I gave but one example. There are others. Yes, many moral codes change and are cultural, but there are codes that transcend cultures. How is that possible? I guess to me it makes sense that certain moral codes are universal because they were ingrained in us by God.

There are several problems with your argument.

1) You haven't shown that there are universal morals. You might think murder is one but there are plenty of murders carried out each year. Even governments have authorised them. Historically murder has been used as a tool for political purposes. It is a very popular passtime.

2) If some moral codes do transcend cultures, that doesn't imply any external moral giving entity, merely that members of a speciies share behaviour common to that species. All dogs lick their balls, all birds shit from a great height etc.

3) You're begging the question. In order to asign the cause of X to entity Y, you first have to prove that entity Y exists and would be capable of causing X? You cannot assume God in order to prove God.

Your argument is basically:
God is the source of universal morals.
Some morals are universal.
Therefore god exists.

It's a shit argument.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

[
Your argument is basically:
God is the source of universal morals.
Some morals are universal.
Therefore god exists.

It's a shit argument.

Actually my theory (not argument) is:
There are universal morals
To me that logicaly points to a universal creator of morals.

steveOrino

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I guess to me it makes sense that certain moral codes are universal because they were ingrained in us by God.

The argument could also be made that morality was ingrained in us by evolution. Primitive tribes that slaughtered themselves or warred constantly with their neighbors would be far less likely to pass on their DNA than tribes that were able to live peacefully.

[PeterB 0]

The problem with your argument of murder is that it's a secular legal definition that is rather arbitrary and varies widely with culture and time.

It was not technically illegal to kill prisoners of war in some cultures or to sacrifice kidnapped 'enemies'.

The moral argument then comes more down to 'is killing alright' and yeah seems it is but under wat circumstances depend on what time period and culture you look at.

You should maybe find another line of argument. The murder one isn't the best. With most points of human behavior a likely explanation usually goes along the lines of us being flock animals and with that comes a set of either informal or formal rules that govern behavior. Think wolves. Humans are just a bit more sophisticated but it's the same general principles at play.