I am going to assume that you do agree that hitting someone with a sledgehammer is wrong, and that you are objecting only to the structure of the argument at that point. If hitting someone with a sledgehammer is wrong, then clearly there is a reason that it is wrong. Therefore, there must be something special about people. (Or, to put it another way, if there was nothing special about people, then there would be nothing wrong with hitting them with the sledgehammer. If you agree that there is something wrong with that, then you must agree that there is something special about people.)

Now, it could be argued that this does not say anything about the nature of people. I am not entirely sure how such an argument could work, but I do know some people say this, so I will also attend to it. Speaking physically, there is nothing fundamentally different between a person and a rock in terms of their composition. A rock is made of the same kind of particles that a person is, after all. Therefore, if there is a difference between a person and a rock, it cannot be just physical. A possibly stronger argument would be the difference between a person and the corpse of the same person. Shooting a live person, except in war or self-defence or similar situations, is clearly wrong. However, if that person died for reasons unrelated to you, it would not be wrong in the same manner for you to shoot their corpse. (It would still be disgusting and disrespectful and probably upset people like his family, and I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that it's wrong for different reasons.)

Essentially. I'm not debating whether or not its wrong to hit someone with a sledgehammer, I'm probing the argument you're building.


For the sake of the logic involved I'm saying, that you are saying there is something special about people which makes it wrong it hit them. I don't know why people are suddenly so special. Why can't I just say rocks are special too, therefore its wrong to hit them?

Basically to me it looks like you're using a pre-determined conclusion or some sort of a priori knowledge to prove what you're saying, instead of saying something to prove the conclusion.

I believe Biophysicist is invoking a once popular belief in philosophy. The idea of the nature of things (started by Greek philosophers, iirc). This nature is considered to be the true substance of something as a sort of metaphysical entity that can only exist as an abstract idea. I do think he's pushing this in a soft stance to imply that humans have extra metaphysical qualities (consciousness, sentience).

I'm going to draw out his argument so we can make sense of it.

(1) Hitting someone with a sledgehammer is wrong.
(2) Hitting a rock with a sledgehammer is not wrong.

---

(3) People have an intrinsic quality that rocks do not.

I think you'd be right to be suspicious of this, Vrael. It seems, at least to me, as though the argument relies on an assumption that hasn't been fully established.

First, the topic does assume that morality exists. The question at hand is given in the OP as “Does God command this particular action because it is morally right, or is it morally right because God commands it?”. Regardless of which side you take, by answering the question with one of those answers, you are assuming that morality exists. Now, one could argue that morality does not exist, but that would be a different question altogether. Likewise, the question assumes a Creator. Once again, arguing against that assumption is a different debate entirely.

Now, it is true that the mere existence of morality does not necessitate murder being wrong and smashing rocks not being wrong. However, my original argument would not actually be essentially affected if that were the case. There would still be something about rocks that makes smashing them immoral; as I am using the term, that would be part of the nature of the rock.

To conclude, if any natural thing has a nature that makes it normally immoral to damage it, then my argument will still work. If we assume a Creator, then that thing's nature would have come from the Creator; therefore, said Creator would have given it its nature, including whatever is in its nature that makes it normally immoral to damage it. (I should define the term "damage" as I am using it, but can't come up with an immediately obvious way to do so. For now, I will just say that it includes physical damage, and things like theft, and also that it is not necessarily immoral to damage something.)

This all being said, you did point out a valid flaw in my argument as presented; I am not denying that.

So you're not really trying to derive morality from the natural state of things really, you're just saying something more like:

Since we have this morality which has arisen through some means, we can see by applying to to different situations, in this case a rock and a person, that there is some intrinsic difference between people and rocks which affects morality.

Do I understand you correctly?

Well, not necessarily rocks and people, but pretty much.

Or, to put it more generally, that the differing natures of things affects morality.

Do you have a way to measure His size or power? Or do you measure with a ruler called "faith?"

If God defined slavery as good, as He did according to the Bible:
Why do people today believe that slavery is wrong? God says that slavery is right, no one should question it. The problem with divine right theory is that God may command his followers to do something that seems wrong to our consciouses. In that case, we begin to question God.

The difference between the game and real life is that good and bad were not clearly defined in the tutorial.

Proof? If I was an Aztec, I'd say a non-omnipotent god created the universe. I would have as much proof as you.

So, Hammurabi's code was immoral? Ashoka's laws were immoral? Christianity wasn't around, so they couldn't have been Christian. For all we know, God could have inspired those moral codes as well.

We're all a bit ethno-centric, but you don't have to keep glorifying your race or religion (paraphrased: "New Zealand became better when white Christians arrived."). I could say that America's GDP has grown so much over the past few decades because of Asian immigrants. Just because people follow (or claim to follow) a certain set of laws or beliefs does not make them automatically better people.

Christian missionaries in New Spain "civilized" natives that committed immoral acts, such as not wearing enough clothes in the hot, dry deserts. Some Native Americans were rounded up and placed in missions, others were essentially enslaved and sent to work in the silver mines and haciendas of New Spain. I know you're going to say that Catholics aren't Christians. Other Christians can enslave people, and that's moral in the Judeo-Christian God's eyes.

I would disagree. Gandhi was not Christian, yet he was a great pacifist that helped a lot of people.

We could be a community of moral people during a drought, but there's still not enough to eat. Morality does not ensure success.

So, you're saying that the morality of an action (e.g. hitting an object with a sledgehammer) is affected by the circumstance (in this case, what the object is)?

There was plenty more I'd like to reply to but I'm trying to stay in-topic.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2012, 2:47 am by rayNimagi.

Indeed. Assume Christian morality for a second. Hitting a railway spike with a sledgehammer is quite different than hitting a person with a sledgehammer, for example. (Now, I could go into intention here, but I don't think I should unless someone asks me to, as it seems like a tangent.) EDIT: Here I'm just explaining my position, not trying to defend it.

Btw, the slavery thing is taken out of context and also translated. If I had to guess (based on the context and the tiny bit I know about Hebrew), I would guess that it's more saying not to enslave other Israelites than condoning enslaving other people. But I'm no authority on this kind of subject by any means.

EDIT: Also, I asked Jack and he says he brought up his example because it's one he's familiar with. I actually mostly agree with you about it being a bad example, but it's not ethnocentrism on his part.

EDIT2: Actually, I agree with you on many of those points against Jack's argument. Silly Jack!

Hrm, after googling, it appears nowadays "civilization" means technological advancement, rather than being civil to one another, or moral. I'm more used to using it as being near enough synonymous with moral.

Citation needed.

I'm not even going to bother with you then, if you call yourself a Christian and don'tDSFSDFSXDFSDF i can't even.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY YES I GET TO USE IT AGAINST SOMEONE AHAHAHAHA


They weren't true Christians. :3

Yeah, I use infinity to measure His size and power.
Slavery's good. If done in the correct Christian Biblical way. The reason people nowadays believe that slavery is wrong is out of a backlash against the terrible treatment of slaves in America, particularly African and Scottish slaves who were stolen from their country and forced to work in the plantations of America. In an attempt to be politically correct, they refuse to allow even the slightest accusation of slavery. However, for example, imprisoning someone in a jail is a form of slavery.

Exodus 20:1-17
I'd say that's a pretty clear tutorial.
Proof? If I was an Aztec, I'd say a non-omnipotent god created the universe. I would have as much proof as you.As I previously said, I'm assuming that the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God is real, as per defined in the Bible.

So, Hammurabi's code was immoral? Ashoka's laws were immoral? Christianity wasn't around, so they couldn't have been Christian. For all we know, God could have inspired those moral codes as well.It is not that they were entirely immoral, but rather that they were not perfect moral codes, and that the people in those countries degenerated from the level of morality that is in a Christian country.
We're all a bit ethno-centric, but you don't have to keep glorifying your race or religion (paraphrased: "New Zealand became better when white Christians arrived."). I could say that America's GDP has grown so much over the past few decades because of Asian immigrants. Just because people follow (or claim to follow) a certain set of laws or beliefs does not make them automatically better people.Le facepalm. I'm not a racist, if that's what you're trying to say. I don't care if you're black white asian, to me, the only distinction worth knowing about is whether you're Christian, or non-Christian. Nowadays there are Korean missionaries coming to New Zealand to convert the white people here. I used the Maori example because it's the one I'm most familiar with.
The Catholic Church is not a true Christian church. And the people in New Spain who imprisoned, killed, enslaved etc. the native people were committing non-Christian acts, even if they did come from my "kooky little sect", and as such their acts should be looked on as sin.
I would disagree. Gandhi was not Christian, yet he was a great pacifist that helped a lot of people.But he didn't seek after God, he wasn't righteous. He may have done some good in his life; most people do. That's not enough for God though.
We could be a community of moral people during a drought, but there's still not enough to eat. Morality does not ensure success.Rather, you wouldn't have one person eating extremely well and ten people outside his house starving. If we starve, we all starve. Assuming morality.

Jack, the truest of all Scotsman.

Also, in the Scriptural reference given, "slavery" was being used to mean forced unpaid labor for a private citizen; you are using a more general definition. It does talk about buying slaves; convicts are not bought that way. Furthermore, your definition would imply that Israelites are not to be put in jail.

What about a person who didn't know that God existed, but still strove for truth and goodness? Most ancient pagan philosophers would work as examples.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2012, 3:36 am by Biophysicist.

I know this doesn't follow your theme of theft, but I recently read Speaker for the Dead which I think has a related question of morality. This question is about murder, and creates a world in which murder is actually a good thing. This is all within the scope of the imagination that humans can understand.

There are alien life forms called "piggies", which can only reproduce after dieing. The male's bodies grow into trees which are only then able to fertilize the females. In this case, it is considered an honor to be murdered, as the tribe will decide who is fit enough to reproduce and kill them.

Now tell me if it is not possible by creation of an omnipotent god that something can be defined as moral or immoral simpy because the god creates a world whose very nature depends upon that action.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2012, 3:41 am by K_A.

Prisoners of war can be bought that way. And that particular passage only applied to when the Israelites were God's chosen people, and no longer applies today. However, the idea of a debtor becoming a slave to his creditors for six years makes sense to me and should be allowed nowadays.

I would say that, in that case, it would appear to be within the nature of the piggies, and therefore not necessarily incorrect. Now, circumstances may dictate otherwise, but in general it would be different.

EDIT: @above: I'm unsure of what you mean by buying prisoners of war. If you mean that one can buy them and force them to perform manual labor, then I don't see any distinction. A debtor being a slave to the person he is indebted to is a different issue. If you mean that he is required to perform a certain amount of labor to pay off his debts, then I would agree, but if you mean slavery in the common sense then I would not. However, what's important is the sense in which the Biblical author meant it; that would take historical and linguistic research, and, much more importantly, not really relate to this topic. Discussing the meaning of a particular passage does not inherently have anything to do with a general question such as this. Now, it could have relevance for a particular reason, but if you think it does, the burden of proof seems to fall to you.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2012, 4:09 am by Biophysicist.

1. I'm a Catholic, so I suppose it doesn't really matter to you anyways.

2. A No True Scotsman fallacy is one where the fallacy "modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule." There are specific objective rules to being a true Buddhist, and one of the rules is nonviolence. Ironically, in your previous statement (Calling me not a Christian due to my belief in a metaphorical Bible) you use the same "fallacy" you claim I did.
Buddhists are nonviolent, Christians believe in the Bible.

What has you being a Catholic got to do with it not mattering to me? To pre-empt your logical train of thought, while I believe the Roman Catholic Church as it currently stands is not a true Christian church, that does not exclude Catholics from being true Christians. However, as you do not appear to believe that the Bible is the infallable Word of God, I would say that it makes the likelihood of you not being a true Christian increase vastly.
In addition, your saying that you believe that Christianity is a human construct, and yet you also say that you are a Christian, seems to be rather illogical to me.

I'm glad you are aware that No True Scotsman does not apply in this case; most people are not.

You appeared to be one of those who are incorrect.

Also, I believe the Bible should be taken metaphorically, not literally.
My ideas about human constructs are that even though God is pure good, he has been interpreted through humans. I don't believe the Bible is free from corruptive influence from the humans who wrote it or modified it. I believe a personal relationship with God is more important that one through an official church. I was being sarcastic with my Catholicism, saying since I'm a Catholic, which you disregard as a "true" Christian church, you probably wouldn't see me as a Christian anyways, so my views on the Bible don't matter.

My beliefs, basically:
1. The Bible is a human interpretation and general guideline on God's word, but by no means perfect.
2. The only way to truly receive the word of God is through a personal connection to God.
3. Morality is more important than actual belief. Good people who are non-Christian, whether it be Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc, are just as good as good Christians.
4. God is fair. I doubt the existence of an eternal hell simply because no person is purely evil.

I guess I'm only a Catholic in name, as I really disagree with the Apostolic Church in many ways. I think the Pope should be a moral and religious figurehead, but by no means the literal Mouth of God. The Pope is human, and therefore corrupts, however unintended or minor, God's message.

Honestly, I don't believe there's any difference at all between any of the religions that profess peace. They are all simply different human interpretations of the same thing.

Really, I'm just a spiritual Christian with a lot of Buddhist influences.

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

Back to the topic: I believe there are certain actions that are good. For example, helping others is good while killing people is almost always wrong. I believe morality and God are the same: Something is moral because God says so, and God says something is moral because it is. Think of it as mathematics: Pi is the ratio of a circumference to a diameter simply because it is. God is good, therefore he speaks only good.

I'm tired, I just woke up, and I'm not thinking through any of my arguments to make them foolproof or completely logically correct. Begin your dissection of minor, trivial details of this post. I've shared for the most part my ideas on this topic, and my religious/spiritual ideas in general. I'm not really interested in arguing any of my beliefs, but I will clarify them if you have any questions. None of my beliefs are based on reason so much as intuition and emotion. Call me a transcendentalist, if you wish, but I consider myself a Christian because I feel like Jesus, whether or not he was immaculately conceived or anything else, was a perfect person. He was perfectly good, therefore he was God. I've never been very good at communicating my ideas, especially religious ones, which are so abstract, but I feel like this is the best I can do.

People act as if God declared something to be good/bad/immoral/etc without any reasoning (i.e. simply because God said so). Name one instance where he has done so.

Premarital sex.

There is a reason why God declared premarital sex to be immoral. Remember God created man and woman so that they can be together. This union called "marriage" is one act of worship. And that's what sex is about. People often misunderstand that the Abrahamic religions think sex is only for procreation. No, sex is suppose to be hot, it's suppose to be recreational as well. Sex is like fire in a fireplace - it's suppose to burn hot and be totally awesome, but if that fire is no longer contained (i.e. gets out of the fireplace) that's where problems arise. Which is what premarital sex is about, doing it where and when it's not meant to be.

I think some resources and citations would help us all understand better, MA. Regarding God's justification for premarital sex, I mean. While your explanation is helpful, you challenged us to give you an instance where God himself gave no justification, not you.