Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

You lack of logical epistemology is showing, your reason filter need an upgrade.
Read carefully:
Now, when will you start using an honest debate style and answer my questions?
Shall I post them again?

Moderator Warning


Please do not make personal comments about others.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

How is this a personal insult?

[JohnA]

John? Are trying to be funny?

If so, good show! Well done!

I'm going to have to add that to the collection on 'Daily Laugh.'

Moderator Comment

This is not adding anything constructive to the debate, but simply mocking another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

How is this not a personal insult?

[keithprosser3]

However, there may be cases where megadeaths may not be yucky in practice even if we 'think' it is (as a 1st pass).

I disagree. As I see it, there may be situations where megadeaths are less yucky that some other even more horrific alternative (gigadeaths?) but that does not make megadeaths 'unyucky' - megadeaths are always evil, even if they are the lesser of two evils.

I can't imagine a scenario where a million plus deaths can be a good thing in and of itself, i.e. without a truly huge payback of some sort.

[JohnA]

However, there may be cases where megadeaths may not be yucky in practice even if we 'think' it is (as a 1st pass).

I disagree. As I see it, there may be situations where megadeaths are less yucky that some other even more horrific alternative (gigadeaths?) but that does not make megadeaths 'unyucky' - megadeaths are always evil, even if they are the lesser of two evils.

I can't imagine a scenario where a million plus deaths can be a good thing in and of itself, i.e. without a truly huge payback of some sort.

If all Jews unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Jews, then why would it be wrong for non-Jews to commit genocide against the Jews?

If all Muslims unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Muslims, then why would it be wrong for non-Muslims to commit genocide against the Muslims?

If all blond humans unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-blond humans , then why would it be wrong for non-blond humans to commit genocide against the blond humans?

At first you may go, ooohh, I can not kill another human. But when your survival, the survival of your species is at risk, well then it is a completely different story.

[keithprosser3]

If all Jews unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Jews, then why would it be wrong for non-Jews to commit genocide against the Jews?

But the Jews hadn't united to form an army to destroy all non-Jews.

Doesn't that mean it was in fact wrong to commit genocide against them?

We aren't talking hypotheticals here - 6 million people were killed and I want to know if it was wrong that they died. The excuse that they were planning to kill all non-Jews is absolutely out of this world!

[Danmark]

If all Jews unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Jews, then why would it be wrong for non-Jews to commit genocide against the Jews?

If all Muslims unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Muslims, then why would it be wrong for non-Muslims to commit genocide against the Muslims?

If all blond humans unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-blond humans , then why would it be wrong for non-blond humans to commit genocide against the blond humans?

At first you may go, ooohh, I can not kill another human. But when your survival, the survival of your species is at risk, well then it is a completely different story.

Sounds like you are justifying genocide. Is this a defense of the mass killings in the Bible? BTW, these wars were not fought to 'save the species' but to advance tribes, members of the same species.

The problem is not that we do not have objective morality, such as not committing murder or genocide. The problem historically and today is that we have defined some as 'the other,' and therefore outside the boundary of our morality.

This is one more reason why this kind of tribal religion is divisive and encourages bad acts, violations of objective morality, because it is one more way to define our fellows as 'other.'

We see this tribalism not just between religious groups, and not just in clear cut wrongs, but in lack of civility and respect in 'wars' against liberals or conservatives, gays, 'secularism', atheists, and even disrespecting members of our own tribe by saying 'they are not TRUE Christians because they don't share precisely the same dogma I know to be the one true faith.

The problem is not that it's hard to identify what is right, our problem comes from not including everyone as deserving of what is right. This was a central teaching of Jesus when he spoke of who your neighbor is, yet that lesson is lost under a continuing tide of tribalism all too frequently done in the name of Jesus.

[JohnA]

If all Jews unite and form an 'army' to destroy all non-Jews, then why would it be wrong for non-Jews to commit genocide against the Jews?

But the Jews hadn't united to form an army to destroy all non-Jews.

Doesn't that mean it was in fact wrong to commit genocide against them?

We aren't talking hypotheticals here - 6 million people were killed and I want to know if it was wrong that they died. The excuse that they were planning to kill all non-Jews is absolutely out of this world!

Doesn't that mean it was in fact wrong to commit genocide against them?

But has anybody in fact committed genocide against them?

We aren't talking hypotheticals here - 6 million people were killed and I want to know if it was wrong that they died. The excuse that they were planning to kill all non-Jews is absolutely out of this world!

OK, so you are changing the topic now. Now you are referring to the Holocaust.

Killing is not 'wrong'. I would never say that. How absurd. Murder is wrong, because it is unlawful killing.
People kill other people all the time in war and self-defense. You and I kill most of the stuff we eat. We take medicine to kill the living things that want to kill us - bacteria. Science are fighting these bacteria on a dayly basis.

Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'.

I posted all of this before. And suspect I will have to post it again to you since it is not written in play (act, scenes, lines) format.

9 million babies die every year.
What are you doing to reduce this? Sit back offering back hand comments from plays?

[keithprosser3]

Macbeth, Act V, scene 5 lines 26-28

[instantc]

Murder is wrong, because it is unlawful killing.

It might be useful to take into account that people have been convicted for unjustified killing, when (1) the acts they had committed were fully in accordance with the local laws and (2) before the concept of international crimes existed. In other words, these people have been convicted for murder without any positive legal base for such convictions. I believe this is the case with certain members of the Nazi administration. It then becomes evident that murder is not wrong because it's unlawful, but rather the other way around.

[Danmark]

Genocide is against law and international law (and UN protects it).

The Nazi's may not have had this genocide law.
The Nazi's may have thought that these group of Jews wanted to destroy them or the world.

So, there are reasons why genocide would be seen as 'not wrong'.

I posted all of this before.

And you were wrong before too. You actually wrote that if the Nazi's didn't have a law against genocide then it "would be seen as 'not wrong.'"
Unbelievable! Assuming the Nazi's had no such law, it would still be wrong and still be seen wrong even by them. They tried to keep what they were doing secret. They knew it violated objective moral law as well as the Geneva convention. Yet they did it anyway. Your advocacy here is the very kind of moral relativism that religionists like to accuse atheists of. They are wrong in general, but apparently your arguments provide an easy target.