Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #129]


Never mind.

I mean, all of these pondering, probing questions to whereas, whether the answer satisfies the person (asking the questions) or not....the person isn't coming any closer to accepting Christ.

Either...

A. "Oh, I get it now. Thanks for answering my pondering question on Christianity. Im still not gonna believe/accept it..but thanks for answering it to my satisfaction.".

Or..

B. "Aha. I just stumped a Christian with pure confirmation bias. They can never answer any of my probing questions. Atheism wins yet again, that's why I'm delighted to remain in a state of unbelief. Whewwwhoo."

Either way, the pendulum ain't moved.

Back to the damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #129]


Never mind.

I mean, all of these pondering, probing questions to whereas, whether the answer satisfies the person (asking the questions) or not....the person isn't coming any closer to accepting Christ.

Either...

A. "Oh, I get it now. Thanks for answering my pondering question on Christianity. Im still not gonna believe/accept it..but thanks for answering it to my satisfaction.".

Or..

B. "Aha. I just stumped a Christian with pure confirmation bias. They can never answer any of my probing questions. Atheism wins yet again, that's why I'm delighted to remain in a state of unbelief. Whewwwhoo."

Either way, the pendulum ain't moved.

Back to the damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.

You may rehearse all your prejudices and recite strawman accusations about atheism. You still haven't made a case for Christianity nor invalidated the Bible - critical case (if you think you have, quote or link) .

But I (we) shall continue to put our ideas on why the Bible and Christianity is not credible, and people will (hopefully) decide. It isn't about you and your denial and never was.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #131]

Can you please clarify your last response to me? I feel we may start to make some actual headway, but I need clarification of your position before doing so.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #131]

Can you please clarify your last response to me? I feel we may start to make some actual headway, but I need clarification of your position before doing so.

"As long as the movement is in the right direction, it doesn't matter if it is the same direction."

If the Holy Spirit tells me to go right, and you to go left...we are both following the correct path, although it isn't the same direction.

And it isn't as if I am some wise person speaking words of wisdom (per se).

It was a statement that I made within the context of the discussion, based on what you had said and the conversation flow.

I just did a poor job of articulating it.

[POI]

If the Holy Spirit tells me to go right, and you to go left...we are both following the correct path, although it isn't the same direction.

Okay, but this does not apply for this test. The test is to verify <whether or not> an "invisible giver" is actually there to give... Here, you and I appear to be diametrically opposed. Allow me to elaborate...

Scenario 1) Say euthanasia is completely legal in this thought experiment. An entire devoted Chrisitan family of ten folks resides in the same room as a loved one who looks to be suffering from a chronic and deemed fatal condition. IF a 'giver' exists, then why will these ten folks not agree on the same moment, if any, to proactively end his/her suffering without instead only allowing for 'nature' to take its course? The 'Holy Spirit' is giving them differing input. Why? Before you answer here, please also consider the following...

Scenario 2) The same ten folks are asked if rape is always bad, and if it is ever okay to do it, even if it were legal? They all unanimously answer YES, it should never be done. Seems odd, right? The "Holy Spirit" has the ability to effectively communicate to all ten here, in this "moral" issue. But with other 'moral issues', like the topics mentioned, he is not successful at all? WHY?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #121]

[url]Such 'gut reactions' and/or 'intuitive senses' flourish just as much surrounding these topics, verses any of the others which are instead universally agreed upon.

What still mystifies me is what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.
[/quote]

"We agree all murder and rape is wrong." Apparently, we know this because a 'giver' gave us the "intuitive sense" to know this. Your pushback here is to suggest that if we do not all have the same unanimous intuitive "moral" senses for another moral topic, then it is not given by an invisible "giver" at all. Why not just instead assume there is no actual invisible "giver" to give? And the reason some of our moral intuitions are unanimous is because of reason(s) outside of an asserted "giver"? You and I could have just as strong impulses, as well as absolute 'moral intuitive' positions about the topics of euthanasia, abortion, slavery, and gay sex. And yet, they differ. If an "invisible giver" is apparently giving, why is this giver 100% successful about SOME (moral) topics, but not others? Your pushback is that the ones which are not universal are not moral topics. This would mean that the 4 topics I mentioned are not "moral" topics?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #130]

This in itself doesn't appear to answer the mystery as to what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #136]

"We agree all murder and rape is wrong." Apparently, we know this because a 'giver' gave us the "intuitive sense" to know this.

I would not agree that the above would fall under the classification of "universally agreed upon morals" given that some murderers and rapists to not agree to any such thing.

Your pushback here is to suggest that if we do not all have the same unanimous intuitive "moral" senses for another moral topic, then it is not given by an invisible "giver" at all. Why not just instead assume there is no actual invisible "giver" to give?

As I pointed out, even an invisible giver hasn't been agree upon re is this giver internal or external to the human mind.

And the reason some of our moral intuitions are unanimous is because of reason(s) outside of an asserted "giver"?

But what are these "some of our moral intuitions" which are "unanimous"?

And yet, they differ. If an "invisible giver" is apparently giving, why is this giver 100% successful about SOME (moral) topics, but not others? Your pushback is that the ones which are not universal are not moral topics. This would mean that the 4 topics I mentioned are not "moral" topics?

It appears to be your assertion that there is 100% success, but clearly you appear unable to show this to be the case. Until anyone can show this to be the case, your reasoning has to be regarded as faulty.

______________

My reasoning is as follows.

IF rape is wrong, what is "rape"?

I ask "what is the definition of "rape" as the first step in my search for an answer.

I find this. "Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent."

I the get rid of anything I think is unnecessary in the definition and in this case remove "a type of" and end up with "Rape is sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent."

I then examine the definition and in doing so, find the common denominator I am looking for which can be applied to morality overall. In this case it is the words "carried out against a person without their consent".

Now I have a definition I can apply to other things which are offered as okay or not okay by those who moralize.

For example, if someone tells me slavery is wrong, I can use the definition I standardized ("carried out against a person without their consent") and see immediately if it falls under the heading of "Rape" as I have defined it, and ask myself something along the lines of does slavery involve the action of "something being carried out against a person without their consent".

If Slavery can be defined in this manner, then it belongs in the "wrong" section.

I also have to take account of the forms of slavery (as I understand slavery) because some forms of slavery involve a mutual agreement between the one being the slave and the one being the owner of the slave, even that both parties might not/do not view their agreement as one of slavery.

This, because with all things, there is nuance. Nothing is "clear cut" or "universally agreed upon". This has to do with how we "see" things, what we are willing to overlook and how this plays out when we externalize our inner mental systems with manifesting such into the external reality we are experiencing.

Using this system of classification helps me in deciding how to evaluate any moral question which arises, like those you mention in Post #116

A) Exactly when is it good to engage in torture/murder? (Answer) Never

The answer you give is "it is never GOOD to engage in torture/murder."

I apply my constant "something being carried out against a person without their consent" re both torture and murder and find that it fits and so can accept that these fit under the heading of "morally WRONG".

Re your second offering;

B) Exactly when is it good to engage in rape? (Answer) Never

I apply my constant "something being carried out against a person without their consent" re rape and find that it fits and so can accept that this fits under the heading of "morally WRONG".

And now to your third offering.

C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

and applying my constant ("something being carried out against a person without their consent") I can answer that it is good to engage with euthanasia if it is being carried out FOR a person WITH their consent.

______________

Now, in relation to the question whether this is being assisted by some invisible mechanism implanted in the human psyche and given my understanding of self I can argue that it is possible that the product of my reasoning comes from a source I am largely unconscious of but still very connected to and reliant upon for the grown of my personality in relation to my experience of being human.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #130]

This in itself doesn't appear to answer the mystery as to what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

I think it does

" Sure, animal likes and dislikes are evolutionary instinct, but all other morals are human constructs, taught over a lifetime, some never seem to learn them but still use the natural instinct ' "I want, I want"."

Morals are complex human social rules built up over social centuries a nd taught by society, and similar, culture o cultire because of instinctive human preference temped by the basic requirement of society; co -operation.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #130]

This in itself doesn't appear to answer the mystery as to what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

I think it does

" Sure, animal likes and dislikes are evolutionary instinct, but all other morals are human constructs, taught over a lifetime, some never seem to learn them but still use the natural instinct ' "I want, I want"."

Morals are complex human social rules built up over social centuries a nd taught by society, and similar, culture o cultire because of instinctive human preference temped by the basic requirement of society; co -operation.

So in breaking that down, what have you identified as "universally agreed upon morals" or even one universally agreed upon moral? Perhaps it is those things which are cause for "cooperation"? If so, what are "those things" and what informs you that they are universal and further to that, how does this support the assertion that no invisible source-mechanism is involved?