Philosophy defends God

reply to post by Wertdagf


once agian lets focus on the axiological arguement.

And there is scientific proof of God and historical proof and I will tackle this on another thread, But right now I am focusing on the Axiological arguement.

All I have seen on this topic so far has been prima facie fallacies.

reply to post by dpeacock


Are we talking ethics or aesthetics?

Context suggests ethics, but I'd rather not assume.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


not true, there are many philosophers who hate relativism in all forms and alot of them who believe in absolute morale values

reply to post by AfterInfinity


morals suggest ethics

reply to post by dpeacock

Originally posted by dpeacock
even cannibalistic cultures do not eat there babies

That's not true. There are many cases of cannibals eating children and babies. I mean... if they're going to EAT PEOPLE, why would they discern?

Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. It is reported in the Bible during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:25–30). Two women made a pact to eat their children; after the first mother cooked her child the second mother ate it but refused to reciprocate by cooking her own child. A similar story is reported by Flavius Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD, and the population of Numantia during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the 2nd century BC was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.

Source

reply to post by dpeacock


Let's have a deeper look at the root of all morals:

Emotion. Morals are how we feel about certain acts.

Now, let's look at how morals can be formed:

Upbringing. There are certain parts of my nation that still refer o black people by the "N" word, and they consider black people to be of unworthy stock. Obviously, this isn't a national belief, but rather a part of culture. This implies that morals are partially dependent upon culture, which negates that sentiment that morals are absolute.

Personal taste. Some get a sort of thrill from torturing animals (I love cats and dogs and birds and...well, animals in general. I actually saved a spider this morning instead of killing it). They get a thrill from the surge of power, of dominance. And so, where some people will think of it one way, another will have an entirely different perspective because of the things they like to do. Again, this implies that morals are also partially dependent on personal taste, which again negates your premise.

Lingering emotions or memories. Sometimes, when we experience something, we carry it with us..and so, even though we've been taught something is wrong, we feel we must act on what we remember, or act one something we remember feeling. In those cases, again, morals change, or we make different judgments on how to handle these morals. This implies that morals are also dependent on the mental context of the situation, which once again negates your premise.

So, I've just shown three different ways that morals are NOT absolute, but differ from person to person, situation to situation, and country to country. And if you had paid any attention at all in world history, you would have known this.

Any more arguments?

reply to post by dpeacock


Now that, I will agree with. Much of our ethics is based on our morals. However, the reason we all have the same morals is because we are unified under the same set of rules, same set of standards, and same set of practices.

If we were a group of 50 separate tribes instead of one nation, how do you think our morals would have been affected?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
However, the reason we all have the same morals is because we are unified under the same set of rules, same set of standards, and same set of practices.

But we DON'T have the same morals. Morals are individual, even within the same country, state or town. We don't have to go to the extreme of eating babies to see this.

Issues where morals differ:

Eating meat
Having sex
Abortion
Fidelity
Marriage
Lying

There are thousands of issues where our morals can be different from one person to the other, as well as from one situation to the other.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But there's still a common element, a common theme. It's called the "Bill of Rights".

reply to post by AfterInfinity


what you are suggesting is that there is nothing in the world that is actually wrong. Which if that is your view then that is fine but I feel sorry for you

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I added to my post. Let's take eating meat. To some, it's morally reprehensible, but to me, it's fine. If a Vegan were starving, he'd likely enjoy a large chunk of steak without compunction.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's because some are thinking "higher" than others. No, I don't mean chemically, I mean that they are thinking outside of the box. They see we're hurting the planet, they are protesting.

Also, it's because this world is full of gray.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Just to be clear, are you saying that everyone in the US shares the same set of morals?

Originally posted by dpeacock

what you are suggesting is that there is nothing in the world that is actually wrong. Which if that is your view then that is fine but I feel sorry for you

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm saying that our judicial system, and therefore our social system, operates on the same general palette.

You might find a few different colors here and there, but overall, there's a lot of common themes going on.

reply to post by yeahright


From man's perspective, yes. Since we base morals on emotions, and emotions differ from person to person, we're obviously swayed in certain matters where that fuzzy gray area makes a broader stripe than other matters...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Let's work with that example.

Vegans don't eat meat because of moral implications, yes, but I think you're oversimplifying it. Most vegans I've talked to don't eat meat because they associate all processed meat products with the treatment that animals receive in the corporate world. Their abstinence from meat consumption is more of a protest than anything else, because it may have turned out differently if we respected animals more.

From my own view, those kinds of morals are more a REACTION to a LACK of morals than anything else. In the absence of humanity towards animals, they refuse to take part in the system that benefits from such inhumane behavior. You don't have to see it that way, but it's a different eyehole than what you seem to observe.

reply to post by dpeacock

what you are suggesting is that there is nothing in the world that is actually wrong. Which if that is your view then that is fine but I feel sorry for you

I am saying that morals are a commonground of what we feel good or bad about.

Morals are a good thing, because it allows us to communicate better about how we get along, which eases the regulation process...wherein we control our interactive disciplines.

I never said morals were a bad thing, I simply said they were subjective.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

reply to post by yeahright


That is exactly what I'm saying.