absolute morality - relative morality = 0 ?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that's the part I'm quibbling over. Your statement premises a concept called "absolute morality" but until we can get somebody to define what that means your question is unanswerable. My contention is that Absolute Morality is impossible, god or no god ... but that's based on what I think Absolute Morality means, which isn't fair to somebody making a claim based on their defnition of Absolute Morality. In another thread I'm waiting for RJT to give me his definition of AM so I can illustrate there could be other ways of it existing besides god-driven. AM undefined is just two words put together but when you take it into the field "that dog won't hunt".

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, but if there no possible definition of AM then AM cannot make anything false.

Suppose someone has a definition of AM that is 100% correct.

1) if I have no knowledge of AM then I can't make use of it.
2) if I have aware of some theory of AM but don't understand it (incorporate it into my understanding of the world) then I can't make use of it.
3) if I understand AM then I am suggesting that moral feelings work in such a way that they reflect this understanding.
3*) (if you don't like feelings) if I understand AM then my understanding reflects this understanding.

Doesn't that that cover any AM, however defined, so the argument is independent of any particular AM. I can't give you a definition (I'm not holding it back, I haven't got one). Its 2) where I think someone might object.


[ QUOTE ]
I've been ducking the "feelings" part because feeling ( as I use the term) are way too kludgy trust with such a delicate balancing act as morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm using feeling more or less synonomously with understanding. just use 'understanding' instead of 'feeling' if you prefer. (I need feelings to handle the god case).

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think there's anything more one could do except to be their own mind. I think what causes problems is that everybody has their own attachments which sway their judgment this way or that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems to agree with what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about whether our own minds get it right to any extent, I'm just claiming that we can't do better (even if there's an objective standard of better) than to rely on our own minds.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It depends on how attached to a conceptual understanding of reality that one is. If belief in concepts rather than what actually is, is strong, then that will sway a person's thinking towards right vs. wrong which creates duality. That duality is just a concept in the mind though, but which then leads to more thinking along those same lines, which causes confusion as to what is actually truth or 'right'. If the mind believes concepts are reality, then the body/mind is imprisoned by thought. It would be like having a bad childhood memory and everytime you think about it you feel terrible. That is when the mind is strongly attached to a belief/thought. The mind that is able to see thoughts come and go without being swayed by them is the mind that sees reality/truth IMO and which from morals feel right/truthful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be suffering from an understanding failure, there's a lot in what you've said. It seems you are talking about a failure of the mind to understand the world (because its strongly attached to particular beliefs etc) and that the moral feelings reflect this flawed understanding. The duality bit worries me, are you saying someone could understand it is wrong to kill someone but feel it is right to kill them?

chez

[RJT]

Chez, I am not sure this post belongs here. (I had a few Cabernet’s this eve at dinner with a some friends - two friends’ bdays and mine next week.) I know you will give me some lea way if I just post it here.

Here’s the bottom line, chez. And I am only playing the “devils advocate” here. Honestly, if God, I have no idea what He really wants of us for sure - other than to love Him and our neighbor. You seem to agree to the love thy neighbor part. What happens if love God is part of the deal (all or nothing) I don’t know for sure.

All I say is this - then if the love God was part of it (i.e. believe in Him) and you don’t, then don’t try to reason with Him when (if) the time comes with this argument - Hey, God I reasoned that your rules weren’t proven. I saw no “evidence” give me a break. Don’t say to Him, I did half of what you asked (even though it wasn’t because it was You who said to, rather my feelings told me so.)

Now, He might say, “chez, you are cool, I like how you behaved - get out of jail free.” All I am saying is if He says “Wrong.” Don’t say you didn’t know the rules. You did and chose to decide otherwise.

I am not unlike you chez. I buy the first part - love thy neighbor. It is the second part that I still have to figure out. I am sure it is correct. I just don’t know why it is so important yet. When I do , then I take the leap. I think it might have something to do with actually living the first part. I think(it might be) when we truly love our neighbor then second part (love God) becomes self evident.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
All I say is this - then if the love God was part of it (i.e. believe in Him) and you don’t, then don’t try to reason with Him when (if) the time comes with this argument - Hey, God I reasoned that your rules weren’t proven. I saw no “evidence” give me a break. Don’t say to Him, I did half of what you asked (even though it wasn’t because it was You who said to, rather my feelings told me so.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely doesn't belong here but so what [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If given the opportunity, I would try to reason with god as follows: (It doesn't really make sense because he knows what's going on in my mind so what could I explain).

'Dear god

You know I didn't believe in you, genuinely didn't believe in you. So how could I love you?

Didn't CS Lewis have it right? (does name dropping get me in, kind sir). I tried to be a good person the way you made me want to be, what more than that could I try to be? Where I failed I'm happy to receive due punishment.

If you punish me for not believing then you are not good in my eyes, the very eyes you yourself gave me.

Yours sincerely'


Then, being god, he can do what he likes.


chez

[RJT]

You know what, chez? I'd give you a free pass in a second (other than calling God no good - if God then we missed something and He is good still). I don't know what God can say to your "letter". That is the BIG question so far as I am concerned. Folk like you (and me really). He gives us intellect and free will.

The difference between you and me is this: my choice (God) comes from my background and my studies. I say yes. Yours (to love they neighbor) comes from your "moral sense".

I think the answer lies therein - my education/and acceptance of God's Word and your "moral sense" that is either innate and/or nurtured. If Jesus is God then the answer is in black and white. One just has to figure it out viz a viz our intellect and today's science and God‘s Word (the Bible). If He is not God, then your moral sense might be something similar and we need to explore that avenue as much as I study the Bible. (Basically, for me - I see no need to reinvent the wheel. I choose Christianity.) If you have ideas where to go from here, let's roll. But, to not explore either is the ultimate "sin" as far I am concerned.

I think the answer must be something like this if Christianity is true: One cannot truly love ones neighbor without too loving God. The reason I say this is because of my belief in Christianity. That He said these two thing that we must do. If/when I figure out why both rather than just one like you suggest, I’ll let you in on the secret (lol). (I do think it is easier to love one’s neighbor when one love’s God, but not being atheist I have no objectivity here - so can‘t say for sure.)

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what, chez? I'd give you a free pass in a second (other than calling God no good - if God then we missed something and He is good still). I don't know what God can say to your "letter". That is the BIG question so far as I am concerned. Folk like you (and me really). He gives us intellect and free will.

The difference between you and me is this: my choice (God) comes from my background and my studies. I say yes. Yours (to love they neighbor) comes from your "moral sense".

I think the answer lies therein - my education/and acceptance of God's Word and your "moral sense" that is either innate and/or nurtured. If Jesus is God then the answer is in black and white. One just has to figure it out viz a viz our intellect and today's science and God‘s Word (the Bible). If He is not God, then your moral sense might be something similar and we need to explore that avenue as much as I study the Bible. (Basically, for me - I see no need to reinvent the wheel. I choose Christianity.) If you have ideas where to go from here, let's roll. But, to not explore either is the ultimate "sin" as far I am concerned.

I think the answer must be something like this if Christianity is true: One cannot truly love ones neighbor without too loving God. The reason I say this is because of my belief in Christianity. That He said these two thing that we must do. If/when I figure out why both rather than just one like you suggest, I’ll let you in on the secret (lol). (I do think it is easier to love one’s neighbor when one love’s God, but not being atheist I have no objectivity here - so can‘t say for sure.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, hopefully any god agrees with you. I've never understood why anyone should think it would be different.

BTW I didn't call god no good, I said in my eyes if he ... then he is not good and that he gave me the eyes. Thus he is responsible for me seeing him as bad under those circumstances.

Chezlaw's wager follows. Similar to Pascal's except its not to believe in god, its to behave in accordance with what you believe to be right.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.


[/ QUOTE ]

You admitted in another thread you don't always keep your own law. I'm not trying to brow beat you here. The reason I bring it up is there is some indication that God will judge those without the law, heathen who've never heard of the Bible for instance, by their own code, or by their conscience. It also says no one will pass their own law.

The point of the Gospel isn't to keep the law, God's, yours, or anyone else's. The point is no one can keep any law. Adam had a very simple law. Don't eat. He broke it. The point of the Gospel is we are all sinners by our own standard and are therefore guilty. Christ paid for that guilt on the cross. The forgiveness He made possible is through faith in Him.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Conclusion. If there is an absolute morality I can do no better than follow the guide of my moral feelings.


[/ QUOTE ]

You admitted in another thread you don't always keep your own law. I'm not trying to brow beat you here. The reason I bring it up is there is some indication that God will judge those without the law, heathen who've never heard of the Bible for instance, by their own code, or by their conscience. It also says no one will pass their own law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as you brow beating me. (even if I did I'm in no position to complain about you having a go at me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Its no big admission on my part. Sometimes I do things I believe to be wrong. Greed, fear etc. sometimes overcome my morals sense. I assume that's true for most people.

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the Gospel isn't to keep the law, God's, yours, or anyone else's. The point is no one can keep any law. Adam had a very simple law. Don't eat. He broke it. The point of the Gospel is we are all sinners by our own standard and are therefore guilty. Christ paid for that guilt on the cross. The forgiveness He made possible is through faith in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't believe it. I don't believe Christ was the son of god, paid for my guilt on the cross, or that I need forgiveness or that I could get forgiveness through believing in something. [I don't mean I find it plausible but unconvincing. I mean it seems like nonsense to me (like believing in the tooth fairy)].

I've no problem with others believing it (though I don't understand why) as long as they don't impose their beliefs on me.

chez