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?

[POI]

I would not agree that the above would fall under the classification of "universally agreed upon morals"

If there exists some 'invisible moral giver', this 'giver' is then not 100% successful in giving any singular 'moral' instruction. (i.e.) about the topics of "murder", "rape", "theft", etc... But this still begs the next question... If an 'invisible moral giver' does still exist, why does this giver do a way better job of communicating/relaying his intuitive messages about the topics of "murder", "rape", and "theft", vs the topics of "abortion", "euthanasia", "slavery", and "gay sex"? Is it because these topics are not as important, or other (not yet clarified reason)? Or, because there exists no perceived 'invisible giver' at all?

The theists might argue for one of two reasons... Meaning, an invisible agency IS there. The reason(s) we do not all get them is/are because of:

1) human stupidity
2) evil

And for the theist, my observation still stands, as I find it quite curious that some "MORAL" topics are still much more unified in their conclusions than others.

[POI]

The intuitiveness comes from, as I said, the Biblical grounds that we already have that rape is wrong. If the Bible is blatantly clear about something, then we all obviously will be in agreement and unanimous on the decision. Since it wasn't addressed, we may/may not be less unanimous...which goes back to prayer and asking the Holy Spirit to guide us as to how our actions can match God's will.

This is my point... If 10 Christians pray to receive an answer, WHY is God always more successful with SOME 'moral' topics, vs others? Meaning, most/all will know 'murder' is 'wrong', with or without ever picking up a Bible. But the ones I mentioned, not-so-much.

************************************************

1985 Obviously, if the Bible has God saying "Thou shall not partake in euthanasia. Trust your Lord", then that would reflect our current intuitions just as rape does..and you wouldn't be on here using euthanasia in your little paradox scenario.

POI Many do not read the Bible, or have the Bible read to them. And yet, many still universally agree 'murder' is always wrong. Are you then saying that the Bible God only gives intuitive senses to people who believe and ask him directly?

1985 You can ask the same question as many different times you'd like, my answer won't change.

POI I'll ask as much as I feel necessary, since your answers are not logically satisfactory.

1985 no matter what answer is provided you aren't coming any closer to belief so why an unbeliever would concern him/her self with the inner workings of a religion they don't believe in, is beyond me.

POI If you can demonstrate that an 'invisible moral giver' does indeed exist, I just may eventually be exactly on your side of the fence. Hence, please start making sense here. Maybe ask God for more logical answers, and/or read what I wrote to William in post 151.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #151]

If there exists some 'invisible moral giver', this 'giver' is then not 100% successful in giving any singular 'moral' instruction. (i.e.) about the topics of "murder", "rape", "theft", etc... But this still begs the next question... If an 'invisible moral giver' does still exist, why does this giver do a way better job of communicating/relaying his intuitive messages about the topics of "murder", "rape", and "theft", vs the topics of "abortion", "euthanasia", "slavery", and "gay sex"? Is it because these topics are not as important, or other (not yet clarified reason)? Or, because there exists no perceived 'invisible giver' at all?

I think by "theists" one is meaning "specifically Christians". This explains why you refer to the supposed IMG in the masculine.

The theists might argue for one of two reasons... Meaning, an invisible agency IS there. The reason(s) we do not all get them is/are because of:

1) human stupidity
2) evil

And for the theist, my observation still stands, as I find it quite curious that some "MORAL" topics are still much more unified in their conclusions than others.

I think there is good evidence that ex-christians who now see themselves as atheists are still highly influenced by their indoctrination and still carry baggage from that.


I already gave my answer re your "test". You have yet to respond to that.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #151]

If there exists some 'invisible moral giver', this 'giver' is then not 100% successful in giving any singular 'moral' instruction. (i.e.) about the topics of "murder", "rape", "theft", etc... But this still begs the next question... If an 'invisible moral giver' does still exist, why does this giver do a way better job of communicating/relaying his intuitive messages about the topics of "murder", "rape", and "theft", vs the topics of "abortion", "euthanasia", "slavery", and "gay sex"? Is it because these topics are not as important, or other (not yet clarified reason)? Or, because there exists no perceived 'invisible giver' at all?

1) I think by "theists" one is meaning "specifically Christians". This explains why you refer to the supposed IMG in the masculine.

The theists might argue for one of two reasons... Meaning, an invisible agency IS there. The reason(s) we do not all get them is/are because of:

1) human stupidity
2) evil

And for the theist, my observation still stands, as I find it quite curious that some "MORAL" topics are still much more unified in their conclusions than others.

2) I think there is good evidence that ex-christians who now see themselves as atheists are still highly influenced by their indoctrination and still carry baggage from that.

1) Based upon the beginning of your given response, my question was already specifically tailored for you. If you care not to address it, so-be-it...
2) LOL! You know what POI means, right? But I find this observation absolutely irrelevant to my given assessment.

[William]

As I wrote, I already gave my answers re your "test". You have yet to respond to those.

[POI]

As I wrote, I already gave my answers re your "test". You have yet to respond to those.

That response is no longer relevant to my follow up (for you). Allow me to explain why... In that response you asked:"what is "rape?""

This question is aside the point for this test (for you). If any 'giver' at all is giving, then this means our intuitions are given to us by a "giver", right? If you, myself, and also 100 other folks are asked the exact same 'moral' question, (whatever that happens to be), all should be given the same "moral intuition" about that same exact 'moral' question, right? If not, why not? I already explained how a Christian may answer. What is yours?

[SiNcE_1985]

This is my point... If 10 Christians pray to receive an answer, WHY is God always more successful with SOME 'moral' topics, vs others?

More successful? I'm not sure how you can even gauge such a thing.

Meaning, most/all will know 'murder' is 'wrong', with or without ever picking up a Bible. But the ones I mentioned, not-so-much.

See, that's where you are WRONG.

Without an external, transcendent standard/guide...there is no knowing what is objectively right/wrong.. precisely because there is no objective right or wrong.

POI Many do not read the Bible, or have the Bible read to them. And yet, many still universally agree 'murder' is always wrong.

I do not believe the wrongness of murder would be universally felt in the absence of God.

The existence of God is probably the one reason more people aren't committing murder.

Are you then saying that the Bible God only gives intuitive senses to people who believe and ask him directly?

The Bible is clear that right/wrong is written on everyone's heart, whether we believe in him or not. (Rom 2:14-15)

POI I'll ask as much as I feel necessary, since your answers are not logically satisfactory.

No answer will ever be satisfactory to a religious skeptic.

That is the name of the game; "remain skeptical".

POI If you can demonstrate that an 'invisible moral giver' does indeed exist, I just may eventually be exactly on your side of the fence.

If you say so. I doubt it.

Hence, please start making sense here. Maybe ask God for more logical answers, and/or read what I wrote to William in post 151.

My answers are logical, to me.

[William]

In case any theists are game, here is the easy test:

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

A) and B) are 'obvious' and universal. And they are apparently also the answers given to us by this deemed 'invisible intuition giver'. And yet, why is C) going to vary quite widely in it's answers? Isn't the act of euthanasia also a morally judgable action, which requires the objective assessment of a "moral law giver", which this 'giver' then passes down his "intuitive senses" to us?

Can you pinpoint where you got the answers to a) and b)? Was it through Christian influence, some other, or simply something you intuitively know as true?

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #157]

Without an external, transcendent standard/guide...there is no knowing what is objectively right/wrong.. precisely because there is no objective right or wrong.

There doesn't appear to be any which anyone has identified.
This means that the transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience eg "the search for a transcendent level of knowledge") standard/guide must be an internal one. This is usually thought of as the subconscious aspect (of the individual human psyche) which said psyche is unconscious of (referred to as "the unconscious".

Such concept is not outside of/contrary to the realm of Jesus-speak (what biblical Jesus is attributed to have spoken about) so can remain on the table of discussion for that - at least - I think so.

[POI]

In case any theists are game, here is the easy test:

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

A) and B) are 'obvious' and universal. And they are apparently also the answers given to us by this deemed 'invisible intuition giver'. And yet, why is C) going to vary quite widely in it's answers? Isn't the act of euthanasia also a morally judgable action, which requires the objective assessment of a "moral law giver", which this 'giver' then passes down his "intuitive senses" to us?

Can you pinpoint where you got the answers to a) and b)? Was it through Christian influence, some other, or simply something you intuitively know as true?

Again, I'm pandering to the "theist" in this specific test, not you. Thus, I'm going to answer based upon what seems to be your current position.

Why do human 'intuitive senses' differ, if it is indeed a "giver" who is giving his intuitive senses to us? I mean, a) is there more than one giver, or b) does this giver change his mind, c) is 'evil forces' blocking some of the requests, d) other? Before you answer, consider this... I reckon if 100 were asked if "raping" and "murdering" a 3-year-old was wrong, no one would first ask for what the actual definitions of "rape" and "murder" are, in this specific scenario. It instead does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that likely all 100 would 'intuitively" agree it is wrong. Why then is this 'intuitive giver' so highly successful here in this scenario, but when it comes to MANY other topics of morals, the answers are not then nearly as universal? Is it because of a), b), c), or d)? And why?