How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #790]

I think people can figure out for themselves what people are saying. I've shared how what I'm saying isn't how you summarize it, so we can let our posts stand there. Do you have anything more to add to supporting your moral beliefs or responding to my critiques in the last post?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #790]

I think people can figure out for themselves what people are saying. I've shared how what I'm saying isn't how you summarize it, so we can let our posts stand there. Do you have anything more to add to supporting your moral beliefs or responding to my critiques in the last post?

I think you need to address this:

Do you agree that if God think raping children is Good, and ice cream is bad, you'd have to act accordingly - despite your like or dislike for either?

Let's be more specific:

Do you think the soldiers asked to kill the babies in the Old Testament had to swallow their disgust, knowing it was Good because God could only command something Good, or do you think they liked it, because it was Good?

Defend the full implication of your moral theory.

[The Tanager]

I think you need to address this:

Do you agree that if God think raping children is Good, and ice cream is bad, you'd have to act accordingly - despite your like or dislike for either?

Let's be more specific:

Do you think the soldiers asked to kill the babies in the Old Testament had to swallow their disgust, knowing it was Good because God could only command something Good, or do you think they liked it, because it was Good?

Defend the full implication of your moral theory.

In my moral theory it’s not really God saying something that makes it good, but how God makes something (say, with a physical nature that can be hurt along with moral agency). So, if God then said raping a child is good, He would be wrong because of how He set reality up. You can apply that to any scenario you want.

I think you still need to address why you are not acting like an objectivist. Or how reason, sympathy, and empathy is an objectively better standard for humans if morality is subjective.

[boatsnguitars]

I think you need to address this:

Do you agree that if God think raping children is Good, and ice cream is bad, you'd have to act accordingly - despite your like or dislike for either?

Let's be more specific:

Do you think the soldiers asked to kill the babies in the Old Testament had to swallow their disgust, knowing it was Good because God could only command something Good, or do you think they liked it, because it was Good?

Defend the full implication of your moral theory.

In my moral theory it’s not really God saying something that makes it good, but how God makes something (say, with a physical nature that can be hurt along with moral agency). So, if God then said raping a child is good, He would be wrong because of how He set reality up. You can apply that to any scenario you want.

I think you still need to address why you are not acting like an objectivist. Or how reason, sympathy, and empathy is an objectively better standard for humans if morality is subjective.

I'm not an Objectivist. I wouldn't want to be, or know what that is. I'm a person.

So, to recap:

The statement 'charity is good' is true if and only if God loves charity. Euthyphro's dilemma challenges this position by questioning whether this means that what is morally correct is merely an arbitrary choice by God, or whether or not these things have objective, eternal truth.

You've "solved" Euthyphro by choosing the second - but slipping in "God made it that way" which means - you've secretly chosen the first horn: God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it.

Therefore, you'd have to agree that if he did make it such that homosexuality, or working on the Sabbath are objectively bad in this universe, we'd have to agree. If he made it that raping children was good in another universe, it would be good. So, you aren't an Objectivist - you are a staunch Subjectivist.

But you don't say what gives God the authority or justification to be the arbiter of moral values. Again, we return tot he robot maker: your position is that if the robot maker makes robots that have free will, feel pain, and are morally bound to kill each other for the robot makers entertainment, that's morally Good. Good in the objective sense. Regardless of the suffering caused.
Yet, you then say, "well, if we use duffering as a measure, then it's not right..."

You are borrowing atheistic moral reasoning to justify your belief. I take this to understand the arguments of Sam Harris, et al, have had an impact on you.

[The Tanager]

So, to recap:

The statement 'charity is good' is true if and only if God loves charity. Euthyphro's dilemma challenges this position by questioning whether this means that what is morally correct is merely an arbitrary choice by God, or whether or not these things have objective, eternal truth.

You've "solved" Euthyphro by choosing the second - but slipping in "God made it that way" which means - you've secretly chosen the first horn: God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it.

What attributes of the universe are you talking about here that were arbitrarily chosen? That humans would be moral agents with a specific emotional and physical makeup to where it logically follows that raping them would be wrong? If so, yes, that was the choice, but the morality follows logically from that choice, not arbitrarily so, which means the first horn is avoided.

Therefore, you'd have to agree that if he did make it such that homosexuality, or working on the Sabbath are objectively bad in this universe, we'd have to agree. If he made it that raping children was good in another universe, it would be good. So, you aren't an Objectivist - you are a staunch Subjectivist.

I don't agree that one could make raping children a good thing because of the emotional-physical nature of children; you'd have to do something about that as well, where humans are made to actually benefit by being raped. This is why my view isn't arbitrary; it also takes into account the logical consequences of our natures (which God is responsible for making).

But you don't say what gives God the authority or justification to be the arbiter of moral values. Again, we return tot he robot maker: your position is that if the robot maker makes robots that have free will, feel pain, and are morally bound to kill each other for the robot makers entertainment, that's morally Good. Good in the objective sense. Regardless of the suffering caused.
Yet, you then say, "well, if we use duffering as a measure, then it's not right..."

You are borrowing atheistic moral reasoning to justify your belief. I take this to understand the arguments of Sam Harris, et al, have had an impact on you.

I have said what gives God the justification: the logical consequences of certain natures that God creates. While a God could want people to kill each other for its enjoyment, this wouldn't make the thing morally good because it would be going against the nature given the robot at creation. The difference with Harris, et al, is that God provides an objective foundation for such nature and provides moral agency while atheism cannot because there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in atheistic views.

[boatsnguitars]

So, to recap:

The statement 'charity is good' is true if and only if God loves charity. Euthyphro's dilemma challenges this position by questioning whether this means that what is morally correct is merely an arbitrary choice by God, or whether or not these things have objective, eternal truth.

You've "solved" Euthyphro by choosing the second - but slipping in "God made it that way" which means - you've secretly chosen the first horn: God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it.

What attributes of the universe are you talking about here that were arbitrarily chosen? That humans would be moral agents with a specific emotional and physical makeup to where it logically follows that raping them would be wrong? If so, yes, that was the choice, but the morality follows logically from that choice, not arbitrarily so, which means the first horn is avoided.

You were so close in understanding.

God, in your view, arbitrarily made a universe in which children exist, in which sex exists, in which suffering exists, etc. Heaven is an example that he didn't need to create those things. God himself is an example that he didn't need to make those things. the universe could have been any number of things, but God arbitrarily chose to create this world.

God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it - which means the moral values you claim exist, followed from that.

Therefore, you'd have to agree that if he did make it such that homosexuality, or working on the Sabbath are objectively bad in this universe, we'd have to agree. If he made it that raping children was good in another universe, it would be good. So, you aren't an Objectivist - you are a staunch Subjectivist.

I don't agree that one could make raping children a good thing because of the emotional-physical nature of children; you'd have to do something about that as well, where humans are made to actually benefit by being raped. This is why my view isn't arbitrary; it also takes into account the logical consequences of our natures (which God is responsible for making).

but, some humans do think rape is advantageous. In the animal kingdom (created by God and not affected by Man), rape is advantageous - if one is to consider it from a certain perspective.
God created the world in which those two things exist. You are simply subjectively deciding what is objectively true.
At least a subjectivist can acknowledge it's only the fact that we find it distasteful in general, and that it causes harm, that we can label it "bad". You are labelling bad on a whim (God's whim) and then finding justification for it afterwards.

The fact is, despite your response, God could have made a universe in which rape is Good - and harmful. God can do all things, even that. For example, God (allegedly) made it possible to perform organ transplants that are ultimately good, but are horribly damaging. God created fire which can be deadly or disfiguring, but necessary to survive the winter.

That's the arbitrary world God created: That water is necessary, but we can drown in it. That our breathing tube is the same as our eating tube.

The world is full of poison and deadly things - yet beautiful. If you accept that God made it, then you have to accept that he made it to be all of it, not the parts you like.

But you don't say what gives God the authority or justification to be the arbiter of moral values. Again, we return to the robot maker: your position is that if the robot maker makes robots that have free will, feel pain, and are morally bound to kill each other for the robot makers entertainment, that's morally Good. Good in the objective sense. Regardless of the suffering caused.
Yet, you then say, "well, if we use suffering as a measure, then it's not right..."

You are borrowing atheistic moral reasoning to justify your belief. I take this to understand the arguments of Sam Harris, et al, have had an impact on you.

I have said what gives God the justification: the logical consequences of certain natures that God creates.

Which, as we've deduced, are arbitrary. And, it's apparent that (if God created this world) he created it with the distinct point of suffering being an integral point. To the extent that Mother Teresa fetishized suffering:
“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”

Open thread: The fetishization of suffering
Why Evolution Is True
https://whyevolutionistrue.com › 2017/07/20 › open-...
20 Jul 2017 — Christianity tells them that suffering brings people closer to Jesus and salvation. So, if you enjoy watching other people suffer, you're really ...

The Toxic Spirituality of Fetishizing Suffering
Patheos
https://www.patheos.com › blogs › 2018/04 › toxics...
20 Apr 2018 — Suffering is always by its nature evil, a privation of a due good. Failure to recognize this can lead to spiritual abuse.

No, Suffering is Not Good | Mary Pezzulo
Patheos
https://www.patheos.com › steelmagnificat › 2019/08
20 Aug 2019 — Suffering is bad. It is bad, it is to be avoided if you can, and you in no way have to like it. Suffering is a byproduct of the Fall. It's evil.

Was Mother Teresa a masochist?
Salon.com
https://www.salon.com › ... › Valerie Tarico's Articles
30 Apr 2013 — The nun viewed human suffering as integral to faith, prompting the question: Why does Catholicism fetishize pain?

Fetishization of Suffering - TheBentAngle
WordPress.com
https://thebentangle.wordpress.com › category › fetis...
1 May 2013 — The catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and ...

The Cult of Suffering in Catholicism
Medium · Confessions of a Cradle Catholic
1 year ago
The Christian message as it currently stands is unnervingly violent. We have created a cult of suffering. We hang up carved images of a dead ...
Missing: fetishize ‎| Show results with: fetishize

Mother Teresa, History's Most Notorious White Savior?
The Juggernaut
https://www.thejuggernaut.com › mother-teresa-contro...
7 Aug 2023 — The controversial figure fetishized the suffering of Indians — yet the Catholic Church made her a saint.

This is a small sample of articles written about how Christianity fetishizes suffering. It appears suffering - whether humanity, or Jesus on the Cross - is all part of the world God specifically made. From Eden, to the Flood, and on and on, God has used suffering as a teaching tool, threat, stick, carrot, and ideal state (Job, e.g.)

If you weren't Christian, I might take your claim that "suffering is bad" seriously.

While a God could want people to kill each other for its enjoyment, this wouldn't make the thing morally good because it would be going against the nature given the robot at creation. The difference with Harris, et al, is that God provides an objective foundation for such nature and provides moral agency while atheism cannot because there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in atheistic views.

Then why have humans killed for enjoyment, and God allowed it? Do you believe Calvin is in Heaven? What about all those Christians that went on Crusades? What about Saul?

You keep claiming God provides an objective foundation, but we've established the foundation is arbitrary. And, we still don't know if God actually created purpose, or even if he did, that purpose is an objective purpose simply because he says so.

You've completely stripped Man of autonomy, which is no different than a toy maker making Tin Soldiers.

[The Tanager]

You were so close in understanding.

God, in your view, arbitrarily made a universe in which children exist, in which sex exists, in which suffering exists, etc. Heaven is an example that he didn't need to create those things. God himself is an example that he didn't need to make those things. the universe could have been any number of things, but God arbitrarily chose to create this world.

God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it - which means the moral values you claim exist, followed from that.

I disagree with your implication about what Heaven shows (I don’t think you are adequately accounting for the role free will plays), but I do agree that God chose to create this specific kind of world and to grant some beings with moral agency, which means the moral values will follow logically from that decision. He didn’t have to create that kind of world or give humans moral agency.

But that’s not the first horn of Euthyphro’s dilemma. In the above, morality follows logically from the act of creation. If it follows logically, then it isn’t arbitrary. The horn of arbitrariness is a problem only if morality is random or whimsical, rather than based on any reason.

but, some humans do think rape is advantageous. In the animal kingdom (created by God and not affected by Man), rape is advantageous - if one is to consider it from a certain perspective.
God created the world in which those two things exist. You are simply subjectively deciding what is objectively true.

Thinking it is advantageous (towards what it means to flourish as a human) doesn’t mean it is advantageous. And most humans don’t even think that because they aren’t okay with them or those they love being raped.

But you are correct in that these two things are existing. We don’t think sharks are wrong for forcibly copulating (i.e., raping but we don’t call it that) because they aren’t moral agents. That’s the difference; humans (in my worldview) are moral agents. In sharks, it’s just another subjective behavior with no objective truth behind it because they aren’t moral agents.

At least a subjectivist can acknowledge it's only the fact that we find it distasteful in general, and that it causes harm, that we can label it "bad". You are labelling bad on a whim (God's whim) and then finding justification for it afterwards.

It causes harm for some and benefits for others. Some with the possibility to rape or not find it distasteful, while others don’t. A subjectivist can label that “disagrees with my taste” but not as “wrong” which denotes something beyond our taste. That’s why we say certain ice cream flavors are distasteful, but not wrong or evil. Subjectivists are beholden to being okay (in that sense) with everyone’s whims.

And I am not doing what you claim. The label of ‘bad’ follows logically from God’s whim in how nature is made; that’s the justification. It doesn’t come afterwards.

The fact is, despite your response, God could have made a universe in which rape is Good - and harmful. God can do all things, even that. For example, God (allegedly) made it possible to perform organ transplants that are ultimately good, but are horribly damaging. God created fire which can be deadly or disfiguring, but necessary to survive the winter.

That's the arbitrary world God created: That water is necessary, but we can drown in it. That our breathing tube is the same as our eating tube.

The world is full of poison and deadly things - yet beautiful. If you accept that God made it, then you have to accept that he made it to be all of it, not the parts you like.

I accept God made it all, yes. I agree that God can make things that are harmful in some way(s) a Good (like the examples you give), but it couldn’t be an overall net-harm (don’t read straight utilitarianism into that, by the way) and still be a Good. I’m not sure rape can logically be one of those things. God can do anything that is logically possible; He cannot do the logically impossible because the logically impossible is a lack, not some positive thing.

Which, as we've deduced, are arbitrary. And, it's apparent that (if God created this world) he created it with the distinct point of suffering being an integral point. To the extent that Mother Teresa fetishized suffering:
“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”

I don’t agree with the quote as-is (not knowing the wider context, I won’t comment on what she exactly meant by it), but I do think suffering isn’t all bad. Suffering often challenges us to rise above and do better and be better and get better at various things (practicing a sport involves a level of suffering, for instance). But there is also unnecessary suffering that comes from the result of our choices that could have been avoided. While some Christians fetishize suffering, not all Christians do.

Then why have humans killed for enjoyment, and God allowed it? Do you believe Calvin is in Heaven? What about all those Christians that went on Crusades? What about Saul?

Humans are bent, thinking we know what will make us happy, when we ultimately don’t. God allows it because a world with free will is better than one without. I don’t presume to know who is and who is not in Heaven. What I do believe is that our sum of moral choices isn’t what gets us in heaven because we are all too bent for that. Those who are changed so that they can freely live in God’s holy presence are the ones that can be in Heaven and I think this only comes through being found in Christ and the grace He offers.

You've completely stripped Man of autonomy, which is no different than a toy maker making Tin Soldiers.

Yes, we don’t get to decide what is objectively good for us, but that’s because we aren’t omniscient; we are too limited in our knowledge. But my view does have free will, where we are allowed to go along with what omniscience says or not.

[boatsnguitars]

You were so close in understanding.

God, in your view, arbitrarily made a universe in which children exist, in which sex exists, in which suffering exists, etc. Heaven is an example that he didn't need to create those things. God himself is an example that he didn't need to make those things. the universe could have been any number of things, but God arbitrarily chose to create this world.

God arbitrarily chose those attributes of the universe as Good when he created the it - which means the moral values you claim exist, followed from that.

I disagree with your implication about what Heaven shows (I don’t think you are adequately accounting for the role free will plays), but I do agree that God chose to create this specific kind of world and to grant some beings with moral agency, which means the moral values will follow logically from that decision. He didn’t have to create that kind of world or give humans moral agency.

But that’s not the first horn of Euthyphro’s dilemma. In the above, morality follows logically from the act of creation. If it follows logically, then it isn’t arbitrary. The horn of arbitrariness is a problem only if morality is random or whimsical, rather than based on any reason.

Then it is based on Reason, not God. That means without a God, we could reason our way to morals.

Thank you.

[The Tanager]

Then it is based on Reason, not God. That means without a God, we could reason our way to morals.

Thank you.

We could reason our way to certain actions, but not whether those actions are objectively good or bad; those actions are simply akin to different flavors of ice cream.

[boatsnguitars]

Then it is based on Reason, not God. That means without a God, we could reason our way to morals.

Thank you.

We could reason our way to certain actions, but not whether those actions are objectively good or bad; those actions are simply akin to different flavors of ice cream.

Logic tells me morals and ice cream are not an apt comparison because it leaves out harm.

You're undercutting your own argument, or you don't know what logic is.