JWs and Contradition

[POI]

The JW.org website states they are not antiscience. This sounds like a rational position. (i.e.):

"Although Jehovahs Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible."

JW.org also states:

"Evil and suffering. These began when one of Gods angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called "Satan" and "Devil," persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever."

For debate: If no evil/suffering existed before the "fall of man", then why do we have evidence that evil/suffering existed prior to the fall of man?

Receipts #1: Dinosaurs exists prior to humans. Fossils exist, of dinosaurs sustaining injury:(http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamonta ... 28ccf42e8c)

Receipt #2: More dinosaur suffering: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ing-about/)

[bluegreenearth]

I'm posting this because I'm sort of on the religious side here. If we throw up our hands and accept subjectivity then this isn't wrong. We need a way to not allow this. "Morality evolved to benefit the organism so whatever benefits the organism is moral," does not do that.

But to be fair, "god said" is no better, because then, they get to do whatever they want anyway, because god said they could.

There has to be some third way that lets people bring down the boot on something genuinely horrible.

The only way an objective morality of the type you are requesting could exist is if humanity lacked the freedom to take any actions other than the objectively moral ones. As long as humanity has the freedom to deviate from an objective moral standard, subjectivity will remain a problem because nothing compels the alignment of everyone's moral intuitions. An objective morality in this context is no less arbitrary than a subjective morality.

[Purple Knight]

I'm posting this because I'm sort of on the religious side here. If we throw up our hands and accept subjectivity then this isn't wrong. We need a way to not allow this. "Morality evolved to benefit the organism so whatever benefits the organism is moral," does not do that.

But to be fair, "god said" is no better, because then, they get to do whatever they want anyway, because god said they could.

There has to be some third way that lets people bring down the boot on something genuinely horrible.

The only way an objective morality of the type you are requesting could exist is if humanity lacked the freedom to take any actions other than the objectively moral ones. As long as humanity has the freedom to deviate from an objective moral standard, subjectivity will remain a problem because nothing compels the alignment of everyone's moral intuitions. An objective morality in this context is no less arbitrary than a subjective morality.

But you're presupposing subjectivity, aren't you? It's possible that human beings have the freedom to do objectively immoral actions and they're still objectively immoral.

I'm looking for a way to avoid this:

"Purple Knight, I get to kill you because morality is subjective and I believe it is righteous. I get to do whatever I think is moral, and because you have no grounds to say I am wrong, you don't get to object."
"Geez, I have no way out of this. Alright make it quick."

...Because subjective morality never seems to apply fully to the person defending themselves or trying to stop an action, only to the person initiating an action. What they're doing is moral, so it would be immoral for me to stop it, since morality is subjective, and inherent in that, is that I have to let people do them. (Yes, even if it hurts me; I should just "get over it.")

Personally I think subjective morality breaks down, because inherent in subjective morality, is the objective moral truth that everyone gets to do them. If morality is truly subjective, and I try to stop people from doing them, then I am objectively morally wrong. So subjective morality just equals a very specific objective morality. If morality has no rails or bounds, that makes someone objectively morally wrong when they say there are rails and bounds (...on another person...) and try to impose them.

At the end of the day I simply see it as arbitrarily picking the Orthodox Jew sacrificing animals over the person who wants to stop him. After all there's no reason not to make it ideological and say he gets to sacrifice Orthodox Jews. If he really believes in it, it's a positive versus a positive and subjective morality crumbles to a contradiction here, insisting that both are righteous even though in practice you have to pick one.

[oldbadger]

Just to mention that I do love religious-theme pictures like this.

So Eve was a western woman who clearly used 'Head & shoulders' and visited the hairdresser. And the eyebrows and eye liners!

[JehovahsWitness]

Just to mention that I do love religious-theme pictures like this.

So Eve was a western woman who clearly used 'Head & shoulders' and visited the hairdresser. And the eyebrows and eye liners! ...

What relevance has your question got to the OP?

[bluegreenearth]

The only way an objective morality of the type you are requesting could exist is if humanity lacked the freedom to take any actions other than the objectively moral ones. As long as humanity has the freedom to deviate from an objective moral standard, subjectivity will remain a problem because nothing compels the alignment of everyone's moral intuitions. An objective morality in this context is no less arbitrary than a subjective morality.

But you're presupposing subjectivity, aren't you? It's possible that human beings have the freedom to do objectively immoral actions and they're still objectively immoral.

I'm looking for a way to avoid this:

"Purple Knight, I get to kill you because morality is subjective and I believe it is righteous. I get to do whatever I think is moral, and because you have no grounds to say I am wrong, you don't get to object."
"Geez, I have no way out of this. Alright make it quick."

...Because subjective morality never seems to apply fully to the person defending themselves or trying to stop an action, only to the person initiating an action. What they're doing is moral, so it would be immoral for me to stop it, since morality is subjective, and inherent in that, is that I have to let people do them. (Yes, even if it hurts me; I should just "get over it.")

As long as the freedom exists to take actions other than the objectively moral actions, subjectivity exists. There is no presupposition there because it logically follows from the definition of "subjective." So, if it is the god's subjective opinion that it is righteous to kill Purple Knight, then it is objectively moral for someone to kill you and for you to submit to being killed based on the theist's definition of "objective." At the same time, you and your potential killer have the freedom to not act in accordance with the objective morality prescribed by the god. So, you are free to avoid being murdered by taking the objectively immoral action of defending yourself. Likewise, your potential killer is free to take the objectively immoral action of not murdering you. Having an objective morality does not logically entail that you ought to be murdered.

[oldbadger]

Just to mention that I do love religious-theme pictures like this.

So Eve was a western woman who clearly used 'Head & shoulders' and visited the hairdresser. And the eyebrows and eye liners! ...

What relevance has your question got to the OP?

That wasn't a question! It was my way of showing how manipulating religion can be.
That really was a very false image of Eve, was it not?

[JehovahsWitness]

It was my way of showing how manipulating religion can be...

And how does that relate to the OP?

For debate: If no evil/suffering existed before the "fall of man", then why do we have evidence that evil/suffering existed prior to the fall of man?

[Purple Knight]

So, you are free to avoid being murdered by taking the objectively immoral action of defending yourself.

Sure, but I kind of assume a human being's first priority should be to act morally.

[bluegreenearth]

So, you are free to avoid being murdered by taking the objectively immoral action of defending yourself.

Sure, but I kind of assume a human being's first priority should be to act morally.

That doesn't logically follow from the context of the argument. Why ought humanity prioritize the objective morality prescribed by the god over their own moral intuitions?

[Purple Knight]

So, you are free to avoid being murdered by taking the objectively immoral action of defending yourself.

Sure, but I kind of assume a human being's first priority should be to act morally.

That doesn't logically follow from the context of the argument. Why ought humanity prioritize the objective morality prescribed by the god over their own moral intuitions?

I have no idea but it seems to be the human condition. I think it's definitional, that is to say, morality is what one should do. And the difference between morality and one's own personal benefit is that sometimes, one should do what is right rather than seek personal benefit.