Does might make right?

Originally posted by rwingett
[i]Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall h personal gain? Wouldn't the true Christian share that wealth with the whole community?

[/i]He said we were to give, which means we own what we have. You want
the things of this world they are here, but it shouldn't be the goal
when there are needs before you. The book of Acts had people selling
to make the lives of others better too, that was still them doing what
they will with what was theirs to do with. If you look at the book of Acts
too there was a couple that lied about their selling and giving, they
ended up being carried out dead, they were told that was theirs they
could have done whatever they wanted to do with. If you want to
make the claim that we are to own nothing or that we don't own
anything, I suggest you go to other holy books because the Bible
does not teach that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[/i]He said we were to give, which means we own what we have. You want
the things of this world they are here, but it shouldn't be the goal
when there are needs before you. The book of Acts had people selling
to make the lives of others better too, that was still them doing what
they will with what was theirs to do with. If you look at the book of Acts ...[text shortened]...
anything, I suggest you go to other holy books because the Bible
does not teach that.
Kelly

That is your particular interpretation of the bible. Clearly there have been others who have interpreted it differently. Consider the following, from the Book of Acts:

Acts 4:32-37:
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

What do you make of that passage? It seems clear to me that the christians were the original Communists. Or communalists, if that makes you feel any better. The passage "and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" was virtually repeated later by Marx as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Originally posted by rwingett
God's "morality"? We examined that in depth in some of the recent threads. Genocide, murder, destruction, all these things are part of god's "morality." You have defined a moral act as being anything god does, no matter how immoral we secular humanists may view it. A secular humanist has the moral backbone to at least decry genocide as being a universally i ...[text shortened]... act, no matter how vile, can be excused if it can be interpreted as having god's backing.

Well if there be a God then his morality reigns supreme. His nature dictates what is moral and what is not in regards to the rest of creation. Granted, not everyone may agree but, in the end, God's way will reign supreme.

According to your morality God should turn his head when men sin or become increasingly wicked. Only God knows what consequences would have arisen had he not acted in Noah's day or not destroyed Sodom and Ghomorra etc. Perhaps in the end mankind was better for it. Perhaps more lives and souls were spared as a result? I am sure you would scoff at such a notion but then again if there be an all knowing God then he would know not us. You make it sound as if God arbitrarily murdered thousands of people, however, when I read the Bible it is made painfully clear that God did not take pleasure in doing so and, in fact, he did these things because of man's increasing wickedness.

Originally posted by whodey
Well if there be a God then his morality reigns supreme.

Why is that? Merely because He can enforce his will on us? You need to give an argument for this claim.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why is that? Merely because He can enforce his will on us? You need to give an argument for this claim.

Well, it is only logical. If there be a God who is all powerfull then his will reigns supreme. The only question then becomes what is his will? Who will violate God's free will regarding what he wills for his creation? What is interesting, however, is that he has chosen to relinquish some of his power temporarily and give us free will to defy him. While we may be able to do so, it is on borrowed time. Such defiance lasts as long as we have breath.

Originally posted by whodey
Well, it is only logical. If there be a God who is all powerfull then his will reigns supreme. The only question then becomes what is his will? Who will violate God's free will regarding what he wills for his creation? What is interesting, however, is that he has chosen to relinquish some of his power temporarily and give us free will to defy him. While ...[text shortened]... e may be able to do so, it is on borrowed time. Such defiance lasts as long as we have breath.

No, it is not logical. It is logical to claim that since God is by definition omnipotent, that if he exists then his will will be done. But this does not entail that this his will being done is morally right, nor that his decrees are morally right. You need an argument for this latter claim.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, it is not logical. It is logical to claim that since God is by definition omnipotent, that if he exists then his will will be done. But this does not entail that this his will being done is morally right, nor that his decrees are morally right. You need an argument for this latter claim.

What is morality? Morality is merely what is deemed "good" or "bad". What is good or bad? Are not such notions merely created from the eye of the beholder as to what behaviors are preferrable?

Originally posted by whodey
Morality is merely what is deemed "good" or "bad". What is good or bad? Are not such notions merely created from the eye of the beholder as to what behaviors are preferrable?

No, we call things "right" when we believe they are right, just as we call things "trees" when we believe they are trees. But it doesn't follow from the fact that we deem certain things to be trees that they are trees simply by virtue of us deeming them so. You are confusing the conditions under which we apply a concept for the conditions under which our application of a concept is correct. That is, you are committing a version of the naturalistic fallacy, by attempting to read off normative claims (about, say, what is right) from purely descriptive claims (about, say, what we call "right" ).

Of course moral notions are our notions, they have developed in us and sometimes we create new ones or revise old ones, but this doesn't entail that the properties or actions or agents that these notions describe are themselves created by us, and it certainly doesn't entail that our application of these concepts can be reasonable or correct in an objective sense.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, we call things "right" when we believe they are right, just as we call things "trees" when we believe they are trees. But it doesn't follow from the fact that we deem certain things to be trees that they are trees simply by virtue of us deeming them so. You are confusing the conditions under which we apply a concept for the conditions under which our app ...[text shortened]... t our application of these concepts can be reasonable or correct in an objective sense.

So normative morals are created in us and descriptive morality is simply what we say about the morality that was created in us? Ok, so the morality created in us by God and society could be referred to as normative morality. So be it. However, it is a temperal morality compared to that of God's God is eternal and we are finite. Thus God's morality, whether normative or descriptive, will prevail in the end. Also, God's morality is stamped upon our conscious so you could say that our morality was shaped or created partially by God himself helping to form our normative morality, no?

Originally posted by whodey
So normative morals are created in us and descriptive morality is simply what we say about the morality that was created in us? Ok, so the morality created in us by God and society could be referred to as normative morality. So be it. However, it is a temperal morality compared to that of God's God is eternal and we are finite. Thus God's morality, wheth ...[text shortened]... ty was shaped or created partially by God himself helping to form our normative morality, no?

Nevertheless Gods morality would not be absolute nor superior to mine and I don't really care whether some mystic being pronounces my actions 'right' or 'wrong' millions of years after my death. My actions as compared to my own moral code will remain either right or wrong for just as long an eternity as when compared to your or Gods moral codes so you are wrong about Gods moral code somehow 'prevailing'.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In utilitarianism, might is irrelevant to morality.

...tell that to the Americans !

Huh? 😕

Originally posted by rwingett
That is your particular interpretation of the bible. Clearly there have been others who have interpreted it differently. Consider the following, from the Book of Acts:

Acts 4:32-37:
[i]32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they h ated later by Marx as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[/i]It is what I said, they laid their stuff down at their feet, what did they
lay down at their feet, what they owned. You cannot give away what is
not yours, and later two were carried out dead not because they held
on to what was theirs, but for lying about what they did with their own
things. When they were scattered, did they act the same way or did
they do what was needed, get things in order to survive in the world?
Giving is a part of life if you are a Christian, things shouldn't hold on
to your soul more than other people, I'm not suggesting otherwse,
but at the same time context is required to grasp what is going on and
why.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
So normative morals are created in us and descriptive morality is simply what we say about the morality that was created in us? Ok, so the morality created in us by God and society could be referred to as normative morality. So be it. However, it is a temperal morality compared to that of God's God is eternal and we are finite. Thus God's morality, wheth ty was shaped or created partially by God himself helping to form our normative morality, no?

You don't seem to be getting the distinction that bbarr is pointing out. When bbarr first mentioned "create" it was in reference to notions of morality, which are developed and entertained by normative agents and groups of agents. You, on the other hand, keep talking about creation of morality itself by agents and groups of agents. You seem unwilling to distinguish between what agents deem to be right and what actually is right. Even under your own subjectivist view, you have to make such a distinction. For, it seems under your view that only the perspective and attitudes of the mightiest agent determine morality; thus the attitudes of less mighty agents don't constitute morality and may well be mistaken.

I don't know, it's hard to even understand your view. You seem essentially to be equating relative might with considerations of longevity of perspective -- God is mightiest because He is not temporally constrained and his perspective will certainly outlast the perspectives of all other agents. But what I don't understand is why you think this means that God's perspective somehow determines constitutively morality. The claim that the Biblical God's perspective determines morality is clearly wrong: for example, those times when He deemed it right to promote and bring about genocide were also times when He was mistaken. Can we not agree on that?

Originally posted by LemonJello
The claim that the Biblical God's perspective determines morality is clearly wrong: for example, those times when He deemed it right to promote and bring about genocide were also times when He was mistaken. Can we not agree on that?

No, they won't even give you that. In their minds, God may actually have a good reason for genocide, even though he declines to give it. It is the classic answer of the book of Job - the humanoid is not in a position to expect an answer.

Edit: Thread 69512

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless Gods morality would not be absolute nor superior to mine and I don't really care whether some mystic being pronounces my actions 'right' or 'wrong' millions of years after my death. My actions as compared to my own moral code will remain either right or wrong for just as long an eternity as when compared to your or Gods moral codes so you are wrong about Gods moral code somehow 'prevailing'.

So your actions will remain right or wrong millions of years after your death? In the sight of who? You? As I have said, morality is in the sight of the beholder. Those that are able to judge anothers morality must be living in order to do so as well as have the authority to enforce their views as being correct. Otherwise it is simply a conundrum of meaningless opinions. I mean, we could get in a shouting match over the morality of abortion, but in the end it is legal. Therefore, one side has the authority of the law of the land behind them and the other does not.