Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

I have to keep pointing out that you posed this question within a Christian apologetic specific arena.

You skipped over my question(s) posed to you. Interesting... Rephrased:

Why do we both not agree with the Bible's allowance(s) for chattel slavery? And before you answer, an objective moral would never change, right?

Once this is settled, I'll redirect and answer your question, which would not include Christianity.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #51]

I have to keep pointing out that you posed this question within a Christian apologetic specific arena.

Why do you find that necessary to point out?

You skipped over my question(s) posed to you.

My focus in this thread is primarily to do with the question for debate.
Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

Your questions appear to stem from - at least the belief - that you have knowledge of good and evil. Without that knowledge, can you have morality?

An objective moral would never change, right?

I have asked those who claim objective morality is a thing, for examples of such, and have never been enlightened. Perhaps you know and can present an example we can examine together.

[POI]

Why do you find that necessary to point out?

I guess I have not made myself clear enough, yet? Because the argument, placed in THIS arena, would be that the Christian God sets the standard. As soon as anyone concedes that there can exist an objective moral pronouncement, the Christian will take credit for the god they believe in. My counter is to point out that if an objective moral does exist, it is likely not from any Christian god, unless you harken back to my follow up questions (ala) a) you are plagued by evil or b) that God did not offer advice on the topic of slavery. So I guess we can rule out the Christian God unless we want to rationalize a) and b), right? Do we at least agree here?

Without that knowledge, can you have morality?

'Morality' is about a judgement placed upon an action. Does a "moral" exist if there exists no one to place a judgement upon that action?

It would be like asking if "sound" exists if no one has ears. Does "sound" exist, absent of ears?

I have asked those who claim objective morality is a thing, for examples of such, and have never been enlightened. Perhaps you know and can present an example we can examine together.

IS "objective morality" a thing, absent of brains to place a judgement?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to 1213 in post #27]

I find it sad that people still post this when the reality and identity of the bogeyman has been fully revealed: Ideologically-motivated corporate censorship, the corporate media, profit-motivated industries that shouldn't be profit-motivated (like the medical and pharmaceutical industries) and both sides of extremism - those who believe their morality is higher than the law and they can act accordingly.

I mean, nevermind the fact that there are people who break real laws like don't murder, and somebody has to do something with them because none of you are okay with people just banding together and killing people who try to kill us. You want fair trials and lots and lots and lots of rights for the accused, and that costs money.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #53]

'Morality' is about a judgement placed upon an action. Does a "moral" exist if there exists no one to place a judgement upon that action?

I have said as much in previous posts in this thread.
The garden story gives the example that without a RULE being SPOKEN - no rule is broken and thus no sense of morality can be experienced.
Thus the answer to the question is forthcoming.

It would be like asking if "sound" exists if no one has ears. Does "sound" exist, absent of ears?

Evidence of sound exists, absent of ears (but not absence of eyes).
This image is showing the viewer the result of frequencies (sounds)


Biblically speaking, form is the result of sound ("God spoke and it became so") which - coincidentally - has been shown to be true, scientifically speaking only not to the point of being able to clearly say what the source of the sound really actually is.

I think it is mindfulness interacting with matterness. Whether we can refer to such as "God" or not, is debatable.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #55]

1. Name one objective moral value or duty
2. Prove it

Thanks

[William]

[Replying to William in post #55]

1. Name one objective moral value or duty
2. Prove it

Thanks

I personally don't claim to know of any examples of objective morality which isn't sourced in subjective value/duty . Thus, I do not claim such exists so have no motivation to "prove it".

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #55]

1. Name one objective moral value or duty
2. Prove it

Thanks

I personally don't claim to know of any examples of objective morality which isn't sourced in subjective value/duty . Thus, I do not claim such exists so have no motivation to "prove it".

I don't know of it either - other than an instinctive like and dislike. We can hardly argue that disliking pain and liking getting food when we are hungry is an instinct. Given by a god or by evolution? Evidence says evolution. If we don't need to ascribe such a basic preference to anything but evolved instinct, why should we look for more in other preferences?

It's just too easy to try to cling to gaps for a god, that don't exist any more - neither the gaps nor the gods.

Whether it is argument from ignorance 'I don't understand this, so I'll just say God' or argument from Faith 'I want to credit this to God so I'll reject any other explanation', neither really have any validity, and I have Faith, that people, when they understand (like in a magic trick) cannot be fooled again.

[William]

An atheists faith in what they believe, is as evident as a theists faith in what they believe.

But what is actually the truth?

[Clownboat]

An atheists faith in what they believe, is as evident as a theists faith in what they believe.

But what is actually the truth?

I wonder if this is how other readers are also reading the underlined:
"An atheist's faith, which is withholding belief is what they believe."
They believe that what they don't believe.

I won't even argue against the claim that a theists faith is similar to a lack of belief as that would give this idea credit it doesn't deserve.

As to what is the truth? I say it is a truth that all humans should avoid using faith to arrive at truth claims because faith is required in order to believe in false things. It's counter intuitive, like drinking poison hoping it will make you feel better.
Evidence and reason should be used to arrive at truths, not placing faith in things one hopes to be true.