Morals and the existence of God...
12 Jan 2011, 8:34 pm
So if a dead criminal is not punished as long as he's dead, why should he be punished so long as he's alive? It seems as though any atheist who is put in jail on this earth, who finds the jail time to be "a torture" wouldn't mind committing suicide right? I mean, you commit suicide and the suffering is over. You stay alive and you will continue to be stuck in the jail cell. I guess it only works with an unrepentant atheist since one who realizes their faults may be like "I deserve this, I'm going to pay my dues".
Um..... because we often consider punishing criminals to be the right thing to do. We don't punish dead ones because of practical reasons.
Um... ok? Given that the worst punishment we have is the death penalty, somebody opting for that over their lesser sentence doesn't seem like that much of an abridgment of justice to me. I mean, the question of suicide while in prison, just doesn't seem to be a question of justice at all, but rather a question of suicide.
I don't see how atheism and the death penalty can go together. It seems as though the death penalty can be viewed as a "free ride to nowhere". And you mention how you don't punish the dead ones for practical reasons. Yes, I agree with you, thats why it doesn't make sense to me that God does not exist. Like if God doesn't exist then one is forced to believe that justice is just a man-made concept and that a person's state of being (dead or alive) determines whether justice will be served. No, I am not going to believe that justice is this limited concept and that there is no other power out there.
12 Jan 2011, 8:37 pm
Let us say that the lord your god appeared before you, and by virtue of his divinity, there could be no doubt that it was him(its not the devil, and you can tell).
He says to you, "Look jc6chan, you are a pretty decent person, so I am going to make an exception for you. If you want to kill one person, any one person, you can, and you wont be punished for it, now or after death."
He goes on to say "I am not telling you that you must, only that you can, if you so choose." and your heart is filled with the truth of his promise(you know that this is true).
and poof. Hes gone.
Would you kill someone?
I'm confused. Whats the point you're trying to make? I don't believe God will tell me to do something immoral.
12 Jan 2011, 8:50 pm
I don't see where you are coming from and I don't see how the heck you think what you are saying makes any sense.
I am not sure how you want me to respond further, as... I don't even comprehend the reasoning process(if there is one) that leads you to this conclusion.
12 Jan 2011, 9:32 pm
Let us say that the lord your god appeared before you, and by virtue of his divinity, there could be no doubt that it was him(its not the devil, and you can tell).
He says to you, "Look jc6chan, you are a pretty decent person, so I am going to make an exception for you. If you want to kill one person, any one person, you can, and you wont be punished for it, now or after death."
He goes on to say "I am not telling you that you must, only that you can, if you so choose." and your heart is filled with the truth of his promise(you know that this is true).
and poof. Hes gone.
Would you kill someone?
I'm confused. Whats the point you're trying to make? I don't believe God will tell me to do something immoral.
No he probably wouldnt play favorites like that.
But if he said its ok, then its not immoral, right?
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
13 Jan 2011, 12:48 am
What an interesting thread. jc6Chan you seem to have hit the nail right on the head, well said.
@ AG
I think that talking about what is right also entails moral responsibility. I see the two as being logically linked. Take Atheistic Moral Platonism (AMP) for example. Under AMP 'the good' exists in some objective sense, it is just not linked to God. However under that same view it is reasonable to think that while chivalry, charity and temperance exist that gluttony, pride and arrogance must also exist in the same way. Under AMP there is absolutely no reason to pick one action over the other because there is no accountability under this system. So 'the good' may exist but it cannot be considered to be in any way persuasive nor is there anything that distinguishes from 'the bad'. From this it follows that without God the distinguishing factor must be moral accountability. AMP Fails because there is no such accountability and therefor nothing specifically objective about this view of morality. This same problem seems to hold for most atheistic moral philosophies. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability.
However, under Theism, specifically Christian theism, then the good exists as a part of God, moral accountability is simply taken as a natural part of His objective nature. So jc6Chan is quite right to suppose that accountability is linked directly to the existence of the moral good.
@Fuzzy
Well under what circumstances could or would God (I am assuming the Christian God) allow for murder? Interesting question, if God did ask for such, his basic moral nature (being all good, all loving etc) would necessitate that he had a sufficient moral reason for doing so. I don’t think that this is the implication of your question though. I am assuming that you are asking me ‘what would I do if God asked me to do something objectively wrong?’ Though this sounds like a good question, it contains a logical flaw that makes it invalid. For the sake of this question let’s assume that God cannot do the logically impossible. For example, he could not make a married bachelor or a square circle. It also therefore follows that he could not do something that is against his own nature, he could not make himself other than what he is, or create something that made him something other than what he is. On this view he could not ask me to do something that was truly wrong, since it is against his nature. If we state that God can do the logically impossible, then the question is moot because he could do this and it would not be wrong.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Jan 2011, 1:09 am
What is the meaning of morals/ethics without the existence of God?
I'm struggling to understand why morals would matter if God didn't exist.
Without a god to blame, ethics become your responsibility and become a more important thing imho.
_________________
.
13 Jan 2011, 1:25 am
@ AG
I think that talking about what is right also entails moral responsibility. I see the two as being logically linked. Take Atheistic Moral Platonism (AMP) for example. Under AMP 'the good' exists in some objective sense, it is just not linked to God. However under that same view it is reasonable to think that while chivalry, charity and temperance exist that gluttony, pride and arrogance must also exist in the same way. Under AMP there is absolutely no reason to pick one action over the other because there is no accountability under this system. So 'the good' may exist but it cannot be considered to be in any way persuasive nor is there anything that distinguishes from 'the bad'. From this it follows that without God the distinguishing factor must be moral accountability. AMP Fails because there is no such accountability and therefor nothing specifically objective about this view of morality. This same problem seems to hold for most atheistic moral philosophies. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability.
However, under Theism, specifically Christian theism, then the good exists as a part of God, moral accountability is simply taken as a natural part of His objective nature. So jc6Chan is quite right to suppose that accountability is linked directly to the existence of the moral good.
@Fuzzy
Well under what circumstances could or would God (I am assuming the Christian God) allow for murder? Interesting question, if God did ask for such, his basic moral nature (being all good, all loving etc) would necessitate that he had a sufficient moral reason for doing so. I don’t think that this is the implication of your question though. I am assuming that you are asking me ‘what would I do if God asked me to do something objectively wrong?’ Though this sounds like a good question, it contains a logical flaw that makes it invalid. For the sake of this question let’s assume that God cannot do the logically impossible. For example, he could not make a married bachelor or a square circle. It also therefore follows that he could not do something that is against his own nature, he could not make himself other than what he is, or create something that made him something other than what he is. On this view he could not ask me to do something that was truly wrong, since it is against his nature. If we state that God can do the logically impossible, then the question is moot because he could do this and it would not be wrong.
Well, for instance, if God said "go ahead, kill Jesus. If you do I will forgive you all for Adam taking a bit out of that apple." Would you then go ahead and kill Jesus?
13 Jan 2011, 1:30 am
@Sand
That would be a hard call. I am not sure I could do that even if it were morally correct (which I am assuming to be the case in your question).
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Jan 2011, 1:40 am
That would be a hard call. I am not sure I could do that even if it were morally correct (which I am assuming to be the case in your question).
If that would happen to me, I would assume it was the devil, not God.
I would assume that also, I viewed your question as an extension of the one put forward by fuzzy.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Jan 2011, 1:43 am
That would be a hard call. I am not sure I could do that even if it were morally correct (which I am assuming to be the case in your question).
If that would happen to me, I would assume it was the devil, not God.
I would assume that also, I viewed your question as an extension of the one put forward by fuzzy.
Which makes it one hell of a moral dilemma about the nature of God and how to decide what is the right thing to do.
13 Jan 2011, 3:29 am
True
What engages me is your reaction to doubt God in preference for a morality which you contain internally whch points you in another direction. This is in strong contrast to the story of Abraham and his willingness to murder his son at the command of what he assumed was God. Something of consequence has occurred in morality in modern times to establish a different set of standards so that your concept of God has to follow your standards of morality rather than you follow His no matter the consequences.
13 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
I would not say that this is a product of modernity. Even Christ asked the Father for a way out in Gethsemane.
Which, if accepted as true, brings in some doubt about the unity of God and Christ and whether Christ was merely a human who valued his life as a human would normally do.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| NT mom is the bane of my existence |
24 Mar 2024, 12:00 am |
| Trauma from Existence of Menstruation |
05 Apr 2024, 3:27 am |
