Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
Read your history.

I have read quite a lot of history, but not much of it was written by slaves who said that slavery was moral. What I have read that has been written by slaves has shown quite the opposite.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I have read quite a lot of history, but not much of it was written by slaves who said that slavery was moral. What I have read that has been written by slaves has shown quite the opposite.

Again, I was only talking in terms of the populace at large and not focusing on the slaves themselves.

Originally posted by whodey
The first point I would like to make is that if we agree with God's morality, it could be evidence that he determines morality. After all, if there are no dissenting opinions and all are in agreement, who then is to say that God is not moral? For example, if our inner voice or conscience is in agreement with God's law of free will, then it must be moral, n ami? That is, of coarse, if we were in communion with him as Adam was in the garden.

The first point I would like to make is that if we agree with God's morality, it could be evidence that he determines morality. After all, if there are no dissenting opinions and all are in agreement, who then is to say that God is not moral? For example, if our inner voice or conscience is in agreement with God's law of free will, then it must be moral, no?

I don't know why you insist on making this fallacious claim. I know I have called you on it in past threads, and bbarr called you on it already in this very thread (see page 4, reread his comments regarding your use of the naturalistic fallacy).

The conflict only comes when there is disagreement in regards to what is moral and not moral. Then there is either a gray area or one in which one side is correct and the other is not. How then is one to distinguish which side is correct?

Well, according to you, it's whichever side is 'mightier' and can thereby enforce its will. Again, this renders morality as something that is merely arbitrary. Why aren't you asking questions like which side can point to good compelling reasons for their view? And what is wrong with the idea that true moral claims report objective facts? In that case, the correct side would be the side whose view is in keeping with normative facts about the world. And maybe one side is correct on some points, and the other side is correct on other points (as opposed to your view which entails that one side, the mightier, is right on all points).

Help me out here, whodey, because your view just seems so arbitrary to me. In the event that two groups come into conflict over what they take to be morally correct, you just seem to merely stipulate that one side must actually be correct and that this correct side is whichever side is, as a matter of descriptive fact, mightier. How does that not just render morality arbitrary?

Usually the rub comes when one party's free will is percieved to have been violated.

And what exactly does it mean for one to violate another's free will? You talk about such violation extensively like our conversation hinges on it, and I just don't know what you are talking about. I'm willing to bet our views on free will differ substantially. I don't want to debate that here. I just want to know exactly what you mean when you talk about such violation. What would one have to do in order to violate your free will?

As far as your other comments about evil being in the world despite sin, I would take issue with this. I do not think that men would die via cancer, AIDS, etc. Nor do I think that man would die from natural disasters....

Regarding this section on natural evils, I couldn't disagree with you more. For one, you treat the "I-creature" as something permanent and as something that persists beyond the point of natural death. I find that to be very far removed from reality. I don't need to debate that with you here either, though, because regardless of whether or not you think one can die (whatever exactly it is you take death to be) due to these natural evils, surely you'll agree that these natural evils cause much pain and suffering here on earth.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Well, according to you, it's whichever side is 'mightier' and can thereby enforce its will. Again, this renders morality as something that is merely arbitrary. Why aren't you asking questions like which side can point to good compelling reasons for their view? And what is wrong with the idea that true moral claims report objective facts? In that case, ...[text shortened]... nts (as opposed to your view which entails that one side, the mightier, is right on all points).

I say the mightier morality is right because:

1. God's morality shaped and formed us and gave us an innate sense of right and wrong via our consceince.
2. God's morality will in the end have the last word on how we complied or did not comply with the morality put within us to help guide us.

As far as your veiw that one should evaluate morality based upon normative facts, I would say that we are at a distinct disadvantage. After all, if God knows all and hears all and even is able to know what is within our hearts, he is in the drivers seat in terms of giving us all the facts in such instances, not us. We are free to dig for such knowledge but overall it is an endevour in futility. For example, suppose you take your child in to get vaccinated. Out comes the large needle and it is your job to hold your 2 year old down pinned to the table. The child then shreeks in pain and then looks at you as if you had betrayed him. So from the childs perspective what exacly are the normative facts? The normative facts I think would be, 1. Pain is bad. 2. Avoiding pain is good, 3. Daddy made me feel pain, 4. Daddy is bad. The parent on the other hand has the larger picture. Could one explain all the reasons successfully to the 2 year old I wonder?

Originally posted by LemonJello

And what exactly does it mean for one to violate another's free will? You talk about such violation extensively like our conversation hinges on it, and I just don't know what you are talking about. I'm willing to bet our views on free will differ substantially. I don't want to debate that here. I just want to know exactly what you mean when you talk about such violation. What would one have to do in order to violate your free will?

When I say violating someones free will I would say that one actively seeks to force or manipulate another into not doing what is best for their fellow man. Basically it is violating the rule of treating others in the way that you would like to be treated. For example, preventing a line of action in which the other party desires is violating their free will. After all, would you want someone doing that to you?

Really, my whole arguement hinges on the concept of free will. My concept of love hinges on it, my concept of faith hinges on it, etc. I think everyone can agree that violating ones free will is abhorant and immoral. That is, unless you will benefit from doing so. Then the waters begin to get cloudy, so to speak. Do you agree that the violation of ones free will is fundamentally undesirable or immoral?

Originally posted by LemonJello

Regarding this section on natural evils, I couldn't disagree with you more. For one, you treat the "I-creature" as something permanent and as something that persists beyond the point of natural death. I find that to be very far removed from reality. I don't need to debate that with you here either, though, because regardless of whether or not you think ...[text shortened]... , surely you'll agree that these natural evils cause much pain and suffering here on earth.[/b]

When exactly did "natural evils" seem to play a part in our demise? Was it not after the fall of man, or at least Biblically speaking? Now these natural evils do cause pain, however, why are we subjected to these natural evils? Was man not chased out of the garden and out of his protected paradise? In a sense, once man rejected God via rebellion, God simply complied with his wishes and let him do his own thing and be his own god, so to speak.

Originally posted by whodey
Again, I was only talking in terms of the populace at large and not focusing on the slaves themselves.

whodey - 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".

Where did you clarify that slaves aren't people?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]whodey - 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".

Where did you clarify that slaves aren't people?[/b]

Let me go through this one more time. The premise was that laws typically give certain morals an air of legitimacy. This is because people tend to look for those in authority over them for such guidence. It is simply how we are wired. However, one of the obstacles for justifying certain moral judgements is our inner conscience put their by a higher authority. In the morality of keeping slaves the problem lies in violating their free will. After all, our inner voice begins to talk to us when violating other peoples free will and tells us that if they are our equals then what right do we have in treating them the way we would not like to be treated......that is, of coarse, if they are really our equals. If they are not human being that are equal to ourselves, then what objection could our inner voice make? If they are more animal that human we can then treat them like beasts of burden, no? This is why the slave was "dehumanized". It helped bypass that nagging inner voice of objection and allowed the exploitation of the slave for the love of money. As for the slave, however, I think they knew they were human beings and that they are being maltreated.

Another example today are jihadists who refer to their enemies as "infidels". What right do they have in killing those that are their equals.....unless of coarse they are not their equals. If they are merely a "cancer" on the human race rather than their equals then killing them may be acceptable. First and foremost, however, the dehumanizing must begin in order to bypass the higher authority within our conscience. I think those who are "infidels" know that they are human and are equals to their fellow man. That is not the issue.

Originally posted by whodey
I say the mightier morality is right because:

1. God's morality shaped and formed us and gave us an innate sense of right and wrong via our consceince.
2. God's morality will in the end have the last word on how we complied or did not comply with the morality put within us to help guide us.

As far as your veiw that one should evaluate morality based ...[text shortened]... he larger picture. Could one explain all the reasons successfully to the 2 year old I wonder?

Your numbered points are only referring to what are supposed descriptive facts: that God has His own perspective on morality; He created us and imbued in us an innate sense of morality that mirrors His own; He necessarily has the power to reward or punish us based on whether or not we comply with His morality. What's any of that got to do with the claim that His view of morality is actually correct, let alone that His perspective determines what is actually correct? Sure, God is powerful and can always successfully enforce His own views on morality and justice. But why should I think that His views on morality and justice are right; let alone why should I think they are right merely because He is so mighty?

As I've stated now several times, my main problem with your view is that it makes morality arbitrary. Basically, your view is that whatever God deems right or wrong determines what is right or wrong for all agents. So, hypothetically, if God were to deem it right that we torture infants for amusement, then according to you it would be right. If your God were to deem it right that we lie and steal whenever it suits our fancy, then according to you that would be right.

Concerning the rest, I'm not interested here in how one comes to hold moral knowledge. Yes, if morals are grounded objectively, then we could be mistaken in our moral judgments. And why exactly, if God is a god of love and wishes for us to lead flourishing meaningful lives, would He (from His 'driver's seat'😉 deny us the ability to identify objective moral facts if they exist? Why would He put us at a "distinct disadvantage"? Anyway, my point was just that there are a lot of people out there who think morals are objectively grounded, and I find most of their views frankly much more reasonable than yours. It's more reasonable to think that torturing infants for amusement is wrong regardless of what anyone, including God or the mightiest agent, thinks about it.

In your example, a two-year old is not an instance of a moral agent. Young children like that are moral patients and not moral agents. Are you really asking me what a two-year old would take to be morally relevant? Anyway, you're basically claiming that God is always right; and at the same time claiming that we lack the sophistication to even understand why. So God is right to allow things like tornadoes, tsunamis, cancer; and to command things like genocide; but you don't know why He's right. Does that about cover it?

Originally posted by whodey
When I say violating someones free will I would say that one actively seeks to force or manipulate another into not doing what is best for their fellow man. Basically it is violating the rule of treating others in the way that you would like to be treated. For example, preventing a line of action in which the other party desires is violating their free will ...[text shortened]... eak. Do you agree that the violation of ones free will is fundamentally undesirable or immoral?

Do you agree that the violation of ones free will is fundamentally undesirable or immoral?

Of course not. According to your formulation, if I were to physically restrain a person from stabbing and killing my wife, then I would be violating that person's free will. Also, according to your formulation, if a sadomasochist were to not treat you in the ways he likes to be treated, then he would thereby be violating your free will.

So, no, I do not agree that it is fundamentally undesirable or immoral to carry out what you consider a 'violation of one's free will'. (Nor do I agree that the things you have described should be considered violations of free will, but I'm setting that aside here.)

Originally posted by whodey
When exactly did "natural evils" seem to play a part in our demise? Was it not after the fall of man, or at least Biblically speaking? Now these natural evils do cause pain, however, why are we subjected to these natural evils? Was man not chased out of the garden and out of his protected paradise? In a sense, once man rejected God via rebellion, God simply complied with his wishes and let him do his own thing and be his own god, so to speak.

What does it matter when natural evils began plaguing us? The point is that such unfortunate things exist and they cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Your God knows about them and has the power to prevent them; so why doesn't He?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Do you agree that the violation of ones free will is fundamentally undesirable or immoral?

Of course not. According to your formulation, if I were to physically restrain a person from stabbing and killing my wife, then I would be violating that person's free will. Also, according to your formulation, if a sadomasochist were to not treat you in e described should be considered violations of free will, but I'm setting that aside here.)[/b]

But you use an example of your wife having her free will possibly taken away if it were not for your intervention to help preserve her free will, thus, your example does not fly.

In a nut shell, deep down we agree with God's morality of free will. However, what we cannot agree with, or at least, when the morals of the situation becomes cloudy, is when one violates ones free will in order to help preserve anothers free will who then is right? Often such scenerios are decided in a court of law because they can become so convoluted. You ask for objective morality, for me this is it!!

Originally posted by LemonJello
What does it matter when natural evils began plaguing us? The point is that such unfortunate things exist and they cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Your God knows about them and has the power to prevent them; so why doesn't He?

It is very important realizing when these "evils" came into the world. The natural evils entered the world when sin entered the world.

It might interest you to know that at one time men in the OT lived to be close to 1000 years old. Now some dispute this and say that their time table was diffferent than ours, however, it appears to me that after the flood men only lived about a 100 years. It appears to me that there were climate changes after the preflood earth paridise. You might say that this is horrible. After all, why cut our lives short? What about free will? Well, God tried it the other way and it appears that when given a longer extended life men become more and more wicked thus increasing the violations of others free will. Granted, not all became wicked like Noah, however, most did. Just imagine the wickedness a man like Hitler could bring about. The man only lived about 50 years yet he had the entire world at war.

Originally posted by whodey
But you use an example of your wife having her free will possibly taken away if it were not for your intervention to help preserve her free will, thus, your example does not fly.

What about the attacker's free will? If we follow your so-called God's morality of free will, we must let him continue his assault.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What about the attacker's free will? If we follow your so-called God's morality of free will, we must let him continue his assault.

As I said before, this presents a dilemma. How does one go about protecting ones free will while that person insists on violating anothers free will? It is a balancing act to say the least. If God were to strike every single person dead instantly if they violated anothers free will then I don't think any of us would be here today. On the other hand, if we were to habitually violate others free will or commit horrible crimes in the process of violating anthers free will then the likelyhood of God intervening in some way increases.

In the example that was given to me of a man attacking someone trying to kill his wife we see someone attempting to stop the free will of another who is attempting to violate the free will of someone else. In such a situation morlaity and right and wrong tend to become blurred. At the very least the man attempting to protect his wife will at some point will more than likely have to defend the morality of his actions in a court of law. It is there that the underlying morality of the husband trying to protect his wife will be assessed. The important factors to sort out are intent/motive so that the true morality of the husband can be determaned.