Hypothetical question

Originally posted by googlefudge
The fact that some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering does nothing to change this.

I would ask you to prove your statement, that "some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering", or retract it. Unless, of course, you'd just rather be called a fool that doesn't know what he's talking about.

You even called it a fact, so don't try the old, worn-out "I don't know, it's *your* belief system" line. And this is nowhere near any belief I hold anyways, so, like I said, prove it or retract it.

Originally posted by josephw
It's good to know God never changes.

Yes, it's only our own outdated biases and misunderstandings that begrudgingly fall by the wayside as time continues its inexorable grind.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I would ask you to prove your statement, that "some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering", or retract it. Unless, of course, you'd just rather be called a fool that doesn't know what he's talking about.

You even called it a fact, so don't try the old, worn-out "I don't know, it's *your* belief system" line. And this is nowhere near any belief I hold anyways, so, like I said, prove it or retract it.

googlefudge was responding to this hypothetical from Agerg:

By our standards it is maximally wrong, but suppose, for argument sake, there exists some other type of creature - somewhere which, for whatever reason, experiences a level of pleasure which is indirectly proportional to the pleasure it sees others experience. Well in that case it would see the eternal torture of humans to be maximally right!! (and conversely it would say that eternal paradise for humans would be maximally wrong)

Can we really say in this (hypothetical) case that our perception of maximally wrong is perfectly aligned with what is objectively morally wrong?

As Agerg makes clear, this was a purely hypothetical argument designed to test whether we can ever be absolutely sure that something is morally right or wrong. There was no suggestion that this hypothetical being existed, and certainly no reference to your personal beliefs.

I think you should retract your accusation and apologise.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
He would not exist if my wife and I had not taken the conscious (if somewhat inebriated) steps to make it happen. We provided the raw materials. My wife's body did the rest.

This is all there is to creating a human being. And well within the scope of us having 'created' him. Just because other belief systems like to wrap this up in some hippy mumb ...[text shortened]... amoebas is clutching at straws. Do you think I was claiming I could create an ant or an amoeba?

I'm not one to declaim the miracle of a son granted to you, but let's put your own experience aside for one second. Would you consider the inebriated mating of two humans an expression of 'creativity'? Would there normally be any motivation to create (as the primary impetus) in such an act? Or is it only a 'side effect'?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm not one to declaim the miracle of a son granted to you, but let's put your own experience aside for one second. Would you consider the inebriated mating of two humans an expression of 'creativity'? Would there normally be any motivation to create (as the primary impetus) in such an act? Or is it only a 'side effect'?

I'm not one to declaim the miracle of a son granted to you

The birth of my son was not a miracle, so no worries.

inebriated mating

I thought you said you were going to leave my experience aside for a second?

Would you consider the inebriated mating of two humans an expression of 'creativity'?

No, at least not in the conventional sense of that term. That does not mean, however, that they did not create a human life. 'Creativity' implies something very different to me than the mere ability to create.

Would there normally be any motivation to create (as the primary impetus) in such an act? Or is it only a 'side effect'?

Some people want to have a baby and like to have a drink to help things along. Some are drunk, just want to have sex and get careless. I can't see how motivation has any bearing on the issue.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I would ask you to prove your statement, that "some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering", or retract it. Unless, of course, you'd just rather be called a fool that doesn't know what he's talking about.

You even called it a fact, so don't try the old, worn-out "I don't know, it's *your* belief system" line. And this is nowhere near any belief I hold anyways, so, like I said, prove it or retract it.

Sigh.

Rank Outsiders response is correct, I was responding to a hypothetical question that
supposed the existence of such a being and I assumed it's existence for the purpose
of my argument in response to the hypothetical.

I don't know, and don't claim to know that any such being exists.
[although there are psychopaths who might qualify]

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes we can say that. The reason being that if morality is about anything it's about the wellbeing of
sentient creatures.
And in this situation you have sentient creatures undergoing infinite suffering.
This is thus by definition infinitely morally wrong.

The fact that some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering does
nothing to change this.

I cocked up in that post, "indirectly" was supposed to be "inversely". Essentially, for this hypothetical entity, it is not so much the case that it gets its rocks off at others suffering, more that its own suffering is lessened by it.

You could also imagine such entities being more sentient than ourselves, and so defining morality to be that which preserves the well being of any creature at least as sentient as themselves.

In such a case I see no reason why we cannot have two parties holding directly contradictory notions of morality.

I hold, on this basis, that to avoid contradiction, morality can only be subjective.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, it's only our own outdated biases and misunderstandings that begrudgingly fall by the wayside as time continues its inexorable grind.

Actually, nothing has changed in the human experience except that it repeats itself with every new generation. There's nothing new under the sun, except that each succeeding generation goes through the same grind.

But God still remains the same, as does His moral law. Homosexuality is as much an abomination to God today as it was when He rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom an Gomorrah. I cannot fathom how a Christian church can tolerate it. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by CalJust
This answer to both you and RO: What or what is morally RIGHT?

Consider anything made by any creator - the Model T made by Henry Ford, for example.

Would it make sense for the car to complain to the designer : why on earth should I be all black?

Wouldn't the answer be: Just BECAUSE!

There have already been many threads on Morality ...[text shortened]... k of humanity) and who can claim to be an impartial judge of both camps, with a foot in neither?

Recall that you said (emphasis mine):

If it came through some definite occurence or God-event which made it absolutely unmistakable and impossible to ignore, which event would then also convince the entire society that this was indeed the case, then I guess I would, together with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.

For the purpose of this argument I am prepared to accept that some sort of God exists, and that it created the universe, and it saw fit to demonstrate its existence in such way that you are left in no doubt it was indeed a creator deity. We can both give this God a pat on the back for creating the universe - must have all been very tricky ... good job God, you nailed it!

But we haven't established not that this god only ever has malign intentions. All we are given is that it created at least one universe, namely our own. If you mean right only in the sense that might makes right then that is a worrying notion of rightness you have there - and you would surely agree that should we succeed in human cloning in the future, we are free to do with such clones as we please (after all, we caused them to exist, torturing them is fair game!) On the other hand, If you don't mean right in this sense then I don't see how you've answered my question.

By the way, I have no problem with morality being subjective; indeed I don't recall ever agreeing it can be anything other than subjective (and yes, I hold that a god's own moral compass is not objective - might not making right and all)

Originally posted by sonhouse
How about just admitting the whole edifice of religion is strictly man made? you act like people could not possibly have been smart enough to come up with all the pithy sayings in the bible or the Quran or the Ipanashads.

They are in fact creative enough when they are motivated to start a religion for the sole purpose of control and political power. It ...[text shortened]... aven but all it does is cover your basic fear of death and there is no getting around that fact.

To prophecy of the time of the coming of the Messiah and His murder seems beyond what normal man would be able to do. And that is only one prophecy in the Holy Bible that was fulfilled. The rebirth of the nation of Israel in a day is one of the prophecies that was fulfilled in our time (1948).

Originally posted by sonhouse
We certainly CAN judge the bible god since the whole affair was made 100% by man, no god started these religions but theists are too duped to realize it.

Why does't the BSometer go off when confronted with all the obvious BS in the bible or the Quran or any other human work of religion?

It really says a lot about the gullibility of humans. Not a good ...[text shortened]... of religion.

There can be no true maturity of humanity till we shuck the sham of religions.

I'm sorry you feel this way. But I have to admit, your anger or frustration speaks loudly.
I suspect that somewhere deep inside you know God exists, but reject this knowledge.
In some way shape or form, God has revealed himself to everyone, be it through nature, or some other way, he has revealed himself.
I won't quote verses and make you even more angry, but what I stated is in the bible.

Originally posted by Agerg
I cocked up in that post, "indirectly" was supposed to be "inversely". Essentially, for this hypothetical entity, it is not so much the case that it gets its rocks off at others suffering, more that its own suffering is lessened by it.

You could also imagine such entities being more sentient than ourselves, and so defining morality to be that which preserve ...[text shortened]... rality.

I hold, on this basis, that to avoid contradiction, morality can only be subjective.

I disagree.

Morality is about the wellbeing of sentient creatures.

Humans have [with a few aberrations we can ignore for these purposes] a general set of conditions
that promote wellbeing and conditions that are harmful to our wellbeing.

As a group we are similar enough that we can create sets of rules and guidelines for behaviour that
promote our collective and individual wellbeing.
And these sets of rules can be objectively tested to determine their relative effectiveness.
There may well be more than one set of viable rules of equal effectiveness.
And as technologies and our environment changes the relative values of different sets of moral rules
may well change.

The same can be said for an alien group of sentient beings, with their own moral rule sets.
Their moral rules are also objective, and their effectiveness be measured.

However, you are then talking about a scenario where both the humans and the aliens are trying to coexist
under the same system.

And while each might have a moral code that is the best possible code for each species and that is objectively
measured to be so.... That doesn't mean that those systems are necessarily compatible, or that there is a viable
solution for a moral system that encompasses both species.

In which situation the general options are;
you can change one or both of the species to make them compatible with each other,
you can have both species live under separate rules that only apply to themselves and not to each other,
Or they go to war and one or both is eliminated or forced to follow the others rules.

There is a short story called Three Worlds Collide [which I don't like, but is an interesting starting point for this
problem] in which a human spacecraft in a 60's version of the future has [for reasons explained in the story]
humans first "first contact" with not one but two new civilisations/species one of which is much less advanced
and the other vastly more so. All three of which find the morals of the others to be utterly incompatible, and the
story explores what then unfolds. It's in 8 chapters and 56 pages. I don't agree with the 'solutions' but as I say, it's
an interesting starting point that deals with just this issue.

http://robinhanson.typepad.com/files/three-worlds-collide.pdf

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I'm sorry you feel this way. But I have to admit, your anger or frustration speaks loudly.
I suspect that somewhere deep inside you know God exists, but reject this knowledge.
In some way shape or form, God has revealed himself to everyone, be it through nature, or some other way, he has revealed himself.
I won't quote verses and make you even more angry, but what I stated is in the bible.

I suspect that somewhere deep inside you know God exists, but reject this knowledge

This is a trope repeated and repeated that just has to die.

I do not believe in the existence of any gods. Period.
I have never believed in the existence of any gods. Period.

No god has ever revealed it's existence to me in any way shape or form.

And no, 'Nature' is not evidence for god/s or 'creators'.

What it says in the bible is wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I suspect that somewhere deep inside you know God exists, but reject this knowledge

This is a trope repeated and repeated that just has to die.

I do not believe in the existence of any gods. Period.
I have never believed in the existence of any gods. Period.

No god has ever revealed it's existence to me in any way shape or form. ...[text shortened]... And no, 'Nature' is not evidence for god/s or 'creators'.

What it says in the bible is wrong.

"No god has ever revealed it's existence to me in any way shape or form."

That's not true!

Considering the recent line of thought being pervaded through certain threads, and in that spirit, I implore you to reconsider.

God has indeed made His existence and presence know to not only you, but the whole world. The truth is, if you will be objectively honest, is that you are rejecting the validity of that revelation.

What is it that you know that tells you you are not the product of creation?

I think that is a fair question.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"No god has ever revealed it's existence to me in any way shape or form."

That's not true!

Considering the recent line of thought being pervaded through certain threads, and in that spirit, I implore you to reconsider.

God has indeed made His existence and presence know to not only you, but the whole world. The truth is, if you will be objec ...[text shortened]... you know that tells you you are not the product of creation?

I think that is a fair question.[/b]

Science, reason, evidence.

You can implore all you like, but I do not believe that your god exists at all.
And there is NOTHING about reality, or my experience of it, that suggests any gods exist.