Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
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 mean ...[text shortened]... Therefore, one side has the authority of the law of the land behind them and the other does not.

I am afraid it is simply a conundrum of meaningless opinions. I can remain right by my moral code long after my death. It is not necessary for anyone to be living for that to be the case. The law does not create morality.
It sounds to me like you are easily swayed by public opinion. I guess that according to you the Chinese are always right as they have the largest population.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid it is simply a conundrum of meaningless opinions. I can remain right by my moral code long after my death. It is not necessary for anyone to be living for that to be the case. The law does not create morality.
It sounds to me like you are easily swayed by public opinion. I guess that according to you the Chinese are always right as they have the largest population.

So when you die who will say that your moral code is correct? Also, if God holds you accountable in regards to his moral code at some point via his authority over you, you can you argue all day that you are still morally correct? However, you are subject to God's moral code not the other way around.

As far as being swayed by public opinion, I am not. I did not give the abortion example to imply that I favor abortion because it is legal. I gave such an example to show that authority, although temperal in this regard, naturally tends to sway ones morality. For example, during the time slavery was legal, the majority opinion was that it was morally justificable. However, when it was made illegal, gradually over time the consensus became that it was morally reprehensible. Likewise, when abortion was illegal, the consensus was that abortion was morally wrong. However, after years upon years of having it remain legal the consensus is that it is now OK. Having said all of that, at some point the authority of the state and of mans will, will become subjected to the authority and will of God. At such a time then things will be made "right", so to speak. It is my belief that abortion is on borrowed time as a result. At some time it will once again be viewed as morally reprehesible by the masses. We are simply "wired" to look to those in authority over us for direction in regards to what is "right" and "wrong". Some look for this authority via the state and others look to God. The funny part is that everyone really just wants to do their own thing and not be held accountable via the state or to God. We only want to do what is "right" in our own eyes. This can be problematic to say the least in light of knowing that I am held accountable via the state and by God. However, not everyone chooses to weigh the costs of thier coarse of action despite such pending penalties.

Originally posted by whodey
So when you die who will say that your moral code is correct? Also, if God holds you accountable in regards to his moral code at some point via his authority over you, you can you argue all day that you are still morally correct? However, you are subject to God's moral code not the other way around.

As far as being swayed by public opinion, I am not. I chooses to weigh the costs of thier coarse of action despite such pending penalties.

All of your arguments; all of your examples; are centered around descriptive ethics. The social consensus is this; the social consensus was that; people think this way; people used to think this way. These are all just descriptive facts, and that's all they are.

But I was under the impression that you were trying to advance a meta-ethical subjectivist thesis that basically says that what is actually right is determined by God's perspective; that moral claims are made true or false by the attitudes of God. That is something you seem to hold to, but you have never given any support for it. You just keep referring to descriptive facts about the way people do think and have thought (and maybe will think) about things, which is simply not relevant.

Originally posted by LemonJello
All of your arguments; all of your examples; are centered around descriptive ethics. The social consensus is this; the social consensus was that; people think this way; people used to think this way. These are all just descriptive facts, and that's all they are.

But I was under the impression that you were trying to advance a meta-ethical subjectiv ive facts about the way people do and have thought about things, which is simply not relevant.

I am attempting to show the correlation between authority and being "right" or moral. I do not believe one can be "right" if one does not have the authority or power with which to back up their claims. For example, I may go down to my local legislatures and scream all day long that they have no moral right to tax me. However, do I have the anything to back up my claims? Who is going to care? Now if I bring in an army and take over the entire country I have a feeling they will being to care. In fact, I have a suspicion that they may soon see things my way once I have established my authority and dominance over them. That is, if they have some sense of self preservation.

God has all the authority in the universe but has decided to relinquish some of his power over us and, as a result, we now have a certain degree of authority via free will. For God, it is moral thing to do to relinquish part of his power over us for a short time. AFter all, he has the might and authority to do so who is to stand in his way? Sure you may have thousands upon thousands of people standing screaming at their local legislatures, "It's not fair" or "Its not right", however, what is going to change? Either they have the "right" or ability to tax them while at the same time retaining their authority or they do not. It all boils down to what they decide in regards to their capacity to carry out certain actions and their will to do so.

Originally posted by whodey
I am attempting to show the correlation between authority and being "right" or moral. I do not believe one can be "right" if one does not have the authority or power with which to back up their claims. For example, I may go down to my local legislatures and scream all day long that they have no moral right to tax me. However, do I have the anything to back ...[text shortened]... de in regards to their capacity to carry out certain actions and their will to do so.

Are slave owners moral, and slaves immoral?

Originally posted by whodey
I am attempting to show the correlation between authority and being "right" or moral. I do not believe one can be "right" if one does not have the authority or power with which to back up their claims. For example, I may go down to my local legislatures and scream all day long that they have no moral right to tax me. However, do I have the anything to back ...[text shortened]... de in regards to their capacity to carry out certain actions and their will to do so.

Well, now you're using 'authority' which would seem question begging in many contexts. Regardless, you're simply talking about the power to enforce one's will. Your view is ridiculous. Apparently, according to you, Bluto would have been right to kidnap, harass, and rape Olive Oyl if it were the case that Popeye didn't have any spinach on him. Also, under your view, any successfully subjugated class of people are wrong to vocally oppose their state of enslavement.

Originally posted by rwingett
Are slave owners moral, and slaves immoral?

Yes and no. As I have said in previous posts, when slavery was the law of the land it gave slave owenership an air of legitamacy because of the authority of the laws that made it legal. In fact, most people viewed slave ownership as "moral" when it was legal. But now that it has been outlawed most people do not view it as "moral". Here we see the need for authority and morality to coincide with each other. The same can be seen with abortion. When it was illegal it was viewed as immoral but not that it is legal it is viewed as being OK. However, what is yet to be determained is God's moral stance on the issue. Only when God decides to relinquish our authority on the matter by establishing his own will and authority on earth, will everyones morality fall in line. Until that day comes, however, God has given us a conscience to guide us. It is important to realize that this consceince in no way overrides our free will. If it did, we would not really have free will and no one would ever violate it. It is merely a warning. Defying our conscience is "uncomfortable" to say the least, but it can be silenced despite this. Silencing the conscience can be done in a variety of ways. One process is to ignore ones discomfort level when defying ones consceince. This is called "searing" ones conscience. But on a large scale this is increasingly problematic. On an individual level it can be a painful process leading to a variety of mental disorders that we see every day. However, I find that the best way to step around ones conscience is merely to change the facts around. For example, slavery was justified by saying that black men and women were not really human, rather, they were more like monkeys and therefore, could be treated like beasts of burden. How then is treating them like livestock immoral? Likewise, the unborn are not seen as "human" rather they are referred to as a fetus. Killling the unborn can then be seen as a womans right to choose since you are not really killing anything other than a fetus.

For the most part I would say that our conscience guides society toward God friendly laws such as making it illegal to murder, or steal etc. However, when the love of money or convience is involved to override the desire to do what is moral, such as slavery/abortion, then the waters become cloudy.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, now you're using 'authority' which would seem question begging in many contexts. Regardless, you're simply talking about the power to enforce one's will. Your view is ridiculous. Apparently, according to you, Bluto would have been right to kidnap, harass, and rape Olive Oyl if it were the case that Popeye didn't have any spinach on him. Also, un ...[text shortened]... ssfully subjugated class of people are wrong to vocally oppose their state of enslavement.

It would be "OK" only if there was not a higher authority that said otherwise such as God or even a group of people who could penalize him for opposing their morality. As far as decenting opinions. there is always room for that. If you feel as though your morality is placed upon what is "right" then you should be able to prevail in the end. This goes back to the idea of God being the one that tilts the scales in favor of one that is "righteous". The shear weight of a moral stance about what is "right" can override what seems to be an insurmountable appearance of an authority figure telling you otherwise.

Originally posted by whodey
It would be "OK" only if there was not a higher authority that said otherwise such as God or even a group of people who could penalize him for opposing their morality. As far as decenting opinions. there is always room for that. If you feel as though your morality is placed upon what is "right" then you should be able to prevail in the end. This goes back ...[text shortened]... t seems to be an insurmountable appearance of an authority figure telling you otherwise.

Why do you put OK there in quotes? If you're just trying to say that it would be morally permissible from the perspective of those successfully enforcing their wills, even that seems not necessarily true: people can successfully carry out actions that they themselves deem morally wrong.

At any rate, your view will always just come back to the mightiest agent, God: if someone who successfully enforces his will is in the right, it is because he is not in contravention to God's say on the matter; if he is in the wrong, it is because he is in contravention. So, again, your thesis seems to be that God's attitudes are morally binding for all agents and determine the truth values of moral claims. This, you still have not supported in any way. When you simply refer to God as the ultimate 'authority' I see that as question begging in this context.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Why do you put OK there in quotes? If you're just trying to say that it would be morally permissible from the perspective of those successfully enforcing their wills, even that seems not necessarily true: people can successfully carry out actions that they themselves deem morally wrong.

At any rate, your view will always just come back to the mighti ...[text shortened]... ly refer to God as the ultimate 'authority' I see that as question begging in this context.

If you wish me to provide evidence to support my claims about God I feel as though you wish me to provide proof for God existence. If this is the case I cannot. However, if there be a God who is all powerfull and all knowing, and who is in essence, the Father of everything, then the issue of morality is no different. Morality that came to us came from God. Granted, we are permitted by God to twist and distort and reject the morality provided, however, his morality remains absolute. Also something to consider is the power to enforce right and wrong. Is simply disagreeing with a particular morality enough? What are the consequences for defiance? If there are not consequences then such talk is merely just that, it is only talk and opinion.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes and no. As I have said in previous posts, when slavery was the law of the land it gave slave owenership an air of legitamacy because of the authority of the laws that made it legal. In fact, most people viewed slave ownership as "moral" when it was legal. But now that it has been outlawed most people do not view it as "moral". Here we see the need for ...[text shortened]... desire to do what is moral, such as slavery/abortion, then the waters become cloudy.

In fact, most people viewed slave ownership as "moral" when it was legal.

I seriously doubt this. Or are you not counting the slaves in question?

Originally posted by whodey
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 mean ...[text shortened]... Therefore, one side has the authority of the law of the land behind them and the other does not.

Do you believe abortion is moral? It's legal after all, and the might of the state is behind those those who want abortions.

Originally posted by whodey
If you wish me to provide evidence to support my claims about God I feel as though you wish me to provide proof for God existence. If this is the case I cannot. However, if there be a God who is all powerfull and all knowing, and who is in essence, the Father of everything, then the issue of morality is no different. Morality that came to us came from God. ...[text shortened]... If there are not consequences then such talk is merely just that, it is only talk and opinion.

I am not asking you to provide evidence for the claim that God exists. Supposing God does exist, I am asking you to provide argument for your claim that His perspective determines what is morally right or wrong. I want to know what is so special about God's perspective that it alone determines moral correctness. You've stated that one special thing about his perspective is that it is eternal, whereas the perspectives of other agents are ephemeral. But why would that be relevant? You've also stated that God is more powerful than all other agents and can always successfully enforce His will. Again, why should I think that is relevant?

As I understand your view, it makes morality arbitrary -- as do, I think, all views that choose this particular horn of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]In fact, most people viewed slave ownership as "moral" when it was legal.

I seriously doubt this. Or are you not counting the slaves in question?[/b]

Read your history.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you believe abortion is moral? It's legal after all, and the might of the state is behind those those who want abortions.

No I do not think it moral. Go back and read my posts. I have already covered this.