How do you know murder is wrong?

[moralist]

What are your thoughts on this? What is your best argument to refute it?

 

[BaalChatzaf]

Murder is defined in law  as wrongful homicide,  so axiomatically by definition  murder is wrong.  But not all homicide is wrong.  If done is self defense or defense of family it is kosher.  If done as an act of war in pursuance of a legal order it is kosher. 

[jts]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Murder is defined in law  as wrongful homicide,  so axiomatically by definition  murder is wrong.  But not all homicide is wrong.  If done is self defense or defense of family it is kosher.  If done as an act of war in pursuance of a legal order it is kosher. 

You make no distinction between law and morality. Government is your god.

In a different country or a different time, you would have a different god.

In a place and time with no government, you would have no morality.

 

[jts]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

What are your thoughts on this? What is your best argument to refute it?

If God is the basis of morality, then we are in trouble. God is merely a belief and people can argue and fight over what this imaginary being says. If morality is based on faith then there is no possibility of resolving disagreements by reason. And which god? Allah, the god of Islam, requires killing.

I don't think the God of the Bible is moral. You might ask who am I to judge God. Who is God, an imaginary being, to judge me? 

The rational basis of social morality is explained by Ayn Rand. Individual rights are the basis of civilization. It's that simple and that easy and there is no mystery and we don't need God as a basis of morality.

The moral relativism taught in universities is garbage and is not the only alternative to God.

 

https://paws.kettering.edu/~jhuggins/humor/tenure.html

Quote

 

Why God Never Received Tenure

---

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, jts said:

You make no distinction between law and morality. Government is your god.

In a different country or a different time, you would have a different god.

In a place and time with no government, you would have no morality.

 

Law is established (by human volition),  it is written down clearly and in most cases its meaning is known.

Morality is opinion,  doxa.  Some folks have one morality, others have another.  But in a nation or community the law is for ALL,  regardless of opinion. 

And human communities have always had  rules and protocols and customs long before there were governments and nations.  These were unwritten laws because they appeared long before writing was invented. 

Moral laws do NOT follow from physical laws.  They are artifacts of human thought and opinion.  Furthermore morality doesn't even have to be consistent or logical.  There are no moral facts, only moral opinions and judgments. 

And government is not my god.  Laws have been formulated in communities with no government,  mostly through custom and common usage. I could live peacefully in a community with no government because I have self control.  Unfortunately not every one has self control  and that is why we have governments.  Actually I am not fond of government.  I regard it as a necessary evil (which logically implies that it is an evil).  

There are no good governments.  There never were any good governments and there never will be a good governments.  There are only bad governments and worse governments.  However well intended,  government always morphs into tyranny of some sort. 
 

[anthony]

Jerry, you are merely kicking the question back to the government by citing individual rights. The question is moral - how do you know it is wrong (evil) to murder?

Individual rights are one's moral defender of the freedom to act without interference, they're not a moral guide, a morality.

Previously, a philosopher said: If God is dead, then all is permitted - and that's the same Prager is getting at. Who or what replaces God? The State, is the normal reply, and a big reason we've come to Statism in this more secular time. (The Shermer-Molyneux debate in AGW touches on this, not deeply enough imo., but they bring up good thoughts).

Prager asks a legitimate question, and I've not seen it answered outside of Objectivism. It is evil to murder because of one's knowledge that man's life is the standard of value, and each man's purpose is his own to pursue.

[moralist]

2 hours ago, jts said:

You make no distinction between law and morality. Government is your god.

Government is Bob's god because it gives him pension checks.

Greg

[moralist]

1 hour ago, jts said:

I don't think the God of the Bible is moral. You might ask who am I to judge God. Who is God, an imaginary being, to judge me?

Your statement supports the premise that if there is no God, morality all comes down to your own opinion, which you have just stated. I wouldn't even go so far as to say whether I think your opinion is right or wrong... because without God that's just another person's opinion of no greater or lesser weight than yours.

Greg

[jts]

24 minutes ago, anthony said:

Jerry, you are merely kicking the question back to the government by citing individual rights. The question is moral - how do you know it is wrong (evil) to murder?

In Objectivism rights precede government.

 

[anthony]

2 minutes ago, jts said:

In Objectivism rights precede government.

 

And Objectivist morality precedes individual rights. Are you saying that all what stops anyone from murder is--individual rights? No, not nearly enough.

[jts]

9 minutes ago, moralist said:

Your statement supports the premise that if there is no God, morality all comes down to your own opinion, which you have just stated. I wouldn't even go so far as to say whether I think your opinion is right or wrong... because without God that's just another person's opinion of no greater or lesser weight than yours.

Greg

God's existence is an opinion. What God says is your opinion and if that could be proved would be God's opinion.

Do you disagree with individual rights?

 

 

[jts]

If God is the basis of morality then we have this question (asked by Socrates).

A.  Is murder bad because God says it is bad?

B.  Or does God say murder is bad because it is bad?

If A then God's statement is merely an arbitrary statement and not a reason.

If B then murder is bad prior to God saying so and we can ask God what his reason is.

 

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, moralist said:

Your statement supports the premise that if there is no God, morality all comes down to your own opinion, which you have just stated. I wouldn't even go so far as to say whether I think your opinion is right or wrong... because without God that's just another person's opinion of no greater or lesser weight than yours.

Greg

"God" is not part of a rational construct.

A rational statement is not simply an "opinion."

It's your opinion you're talking about--and that's your opinion about "God."

Now if God is Reality and Reality is God then that's where the foundation of a rational construct belongs--not these opinions you're opining on.

This God who is/that is Reality can be observed and evaluated, but He ain't talking.

Welcome to science--and all other human endeavors.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll weigh in on this one.

1. I like Dennis Prager, but I don't like that video. I think he made a claim that is simply not true, that outside of the Judeo-Christian worldview, all other people claim morality is opinion. That's garbage. In our wheelhouse alone, morality is objective in Objectivism (notice the name?  ). That is, morality is reality-based and absolute values exist. Doesn't anyone remember reading Ayn Rand?  

2. There is a way to align Objectivism with Prager, however. That is to define God as reality and see the Judeo-Christian God as a personified mythological metaphor of what Objectivists see as reality (that is, without the mythology). When you start looking and comparing, it's there enough to make a case. Rand even talks about a "benevolent universe."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

And Objectivist morality precedes individual rights. Are you saying that all what stops anyone from murder is--individual rights? No, not nearly enough.

Strike "Objectivist" leave "morality."

Rand wrote "The Objectivist Ethics," not "The Objectivist Morality." She did keep hitting miscreants over the head with it, however.

--Brant

[jts]

Pat Condell explains why morality should be based on the Christian God insults the Christian God.

 

[moralist]

4 hours ago, jts said:

God's existence is an opinion. What God says is your opinion and if that could be proved would be God's opinion.

Do you disagree with individual rights?

 

 

For you it is, Jerry. For me it isn't opinion. It's not my opinion that God said not to murder. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you believe God exists. All that matters to me is that you agree that it's evil to murder. Behavior is all that matters... not doctrine.

It is mentioned five times in the Old Testament that murderers should be put to death. Their evil act rendered them undeserving to breathe air their victims would have breathed. This is known as moral justice... and it is perfectly rational.

I agree with individual rights for everyone whose life is deserving of them. I do not agree with individual rights for Islamic fascists as their evil acts invalidate any claim to rights.

 

Greg

[moralist]

4 hours ago, jts said:

B.  Or does God say murder is bad because it is bad?

If B then murder is bad prior to God saying so and we can ask God what his reason is.

 

Definitely B, Jerry.

The same God who created man as morally accountable for his behavior also created that standard of behavior to which he is held morally accountable.

 

Greg

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll weigh in on this one.

1. I like Dennis Prager, but I don't like that video. I think he made a claim that is simply not true, that outside of the Judeo-Christian worldview, all other people claim morality is opinion. That's garbage. In our wheelhouse alone, morality is objective in Objectivism (notice the name?  ). That is, morality is reality-based and absolute values exist. Doesn't anyone remember reading Ayn Rand?  

2. There is a way to align Objectivism with Prager, however. That is to define God as reality and see the Judeo-Christian God as a personified mythological metaphor of what Objectivists see as reality (that is, without the mythology). When you start looking and comparing, it's there enough to make a case. Rand even talks about a "benevolent universe."

Michael

1. Judeo Christian morality is the foundation of Western civilization. This indisputable fact alone validates it.

2. Excellent point. That is my view. God created objective reality. Rand agrees with objective reality. Both God and Rand's standard of moral behavior are similar because they are both morally rational. We are subjective beings who are held accountable to objective reality through the just and deserved consequences of our own actions.

Greg

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

"God" is not part of a rational construct.

A rational statement is not simply an "opinion."

It's your opinion you're talking about--and that's your opinion about "God."

Now if God is Reality and Reality is God then that's where the foundation of a rational construct belongs--not these opinions you're opining on.

 

God created objective reality, so both He and His creation are rational. The well ordered moral design of objective reality itself denotes sublime rationality. It takes a rational person to acknowledge that fact.

 

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think we can safely say if there are no humans, there is no murder.

Michael

[moralist]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think we can safely say if there are no humans, there is no murder.

Michael

Well, that's one solution, Michael.

If there are no humans there's no morality because only humans are uniquely held morally accountabile for their actions.

Greg

[anthony]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll weigh in on this one.

1. I like Dennis Prager, but I don't like that video. I think he made a claim that is simply not true, that outside of the Judeo-Christian worldview, all other people claim morality is opinion. That's garbage. In our wheelhouse alone, morality is objective in Objectivism (notice the name?  ). That is, morality is reality-based and absolute values exist. Doesn't anyone remember reading Ayn Rand?  

2. There is a way to align Objectivism with Prager, however. That is to define God as reality and see the Judeo-Christian God as a personified mythological metaphor of what Objectivists see as reality (that is, without the mythology). When you start looking and comparing, it's there enough to make a case. Rand even talks about a "benevolent universe."

Michael

Damn right. Though I don't believe that Dennis Prager took into account Objectivism...apart from that ~terrible~ oversight, he's about right. I enjoy his articles which show quite an objective thought process.

I think sometimes that atheists (O'ists, libertarians) don't appreciate enough the immense efficacy of Judeo-Christian faith. Imo, one's knowledge is insufficient if not translated into certainty of knowledge, then into certainty in action. The Christian inherits from his faith, the meaning of life, identity, his purpose, conviction, morality, social cohesion, and so on--and he's even encouraged to be successful and grow rich! Michael, those Christians with the fundamental belief that nothing and nobody stands between the individual and his God, are directly analogous like you say - I'd say even closely paralleled - with Objectivists and reality. I'm sure earlier capitalists were all religious. And we all want the state out of our way. It's going to be largely by the Christians' doing that your government is ever to be minimized, I think, and ironic I guess.

If some of those more intrusive Christians volunteer to stay well out of trying to influence Government and lose their concern with other people's bodies and souls, I would find the religion quite praiseworthy. Certainly, I've found many Christians to be so. I'm a relaxed atheist, for so long I have quite forgotten the fact, and have not much time for "militant" atheists (anti-theists as I call them) nor - especially - my favorites, skeptical secularists who have found little to fill the personal vacuum left behind by faith. Those secularists in numbers and their disparaging scorn for any strong convictions - at all - while being soft on the most radical religion, paradoxically - have proven damaging for European nations (in particular).

Objectivists perhaps ought to better realize and utilize the personal power of rational conviction, taken in part from the examples of faith-based conviction which have been historically demonstrated to us..

[jts]

What happened to Religion vs America - ARI?

and transcribed lecture by Peikoff

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, jts said:

What happened to Religion vs America - ARI?

and transcribed lecture by Peikoff

 

 

Some of what Peikoff writes resonates  with a religion that Maximillian Robespierre  attempted to impose on France  as part of the French Revolution.  It was the apotheosis  of Man and of Reason.  Unfortunately it became a pernicious collectivism in Robespierre's mind and practice.  Enough people saw what Robespierre had in mind and what he was advocating,  a vicious Tyranny.   Fortunately for the world Robespierre was made to suffer the same fate he imposed on others in the name of the Great Gods,  Man and Reason.   Robespierre  had his turn on the guillotine.