Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

ringo747 said:
All my definition of objective moral values says that in any given scenario something is really right or really wrong regardless of human opinion.

Your question seems to be more about how we determine what is morally right or wrong and on that I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Morality is a human construct and I don't like the term "objective morality" as in my opinion morality will always be subjective. That doesn't mean you can't reach a consensus as a society but reaching that general agreement doesn't then make something that is subjective objective.

Is a lion being immoral when it kills an buffalo to eat? Or would you prefer it's species died out?
 
zenf1 said:
It's a bit silly really... If an act has a morally positive consequence, in what way can the initial act be morally wrong? Unless it's been drilled into you that certain things are always right or wrong, regardless of the context.
Click to expand...

It's a basic precept of Moral Universalism, it has nothing to do with religious doctrine or the divine command theory. It is a common theme in ethics that some actions are intrinsically wrong, such as taking a life, but there can be a greater moral imperative such as taking a life to save two other lives....the original act is still a moral truth, but the consequences mitigate that with a greater moral truth. Essentially it means that what is right or wrong is independent of opinion or culture, but not independent of consequences or context. It is not absolute as one might assume at first, but it is still objective or Universal.
 
Jason2 said:
Some things are just inherently wrong. Things like murder, rape, infanticide, ect ect. are not only wrong, they are abominations.
Click to expand...

Right... Did you read my second sentence? :p

Could you put forward an argument as to why killing someone is always inherently wrong? Why would it be wrong to kill someone if it saved millions? Please don't just resort to "it's the word of God" or something like that.
 
Castiel said:
It's a basic precept of Moral Universalism, it has nothing to do with religious doctrine or the divine command theory. It is a common theme in ethics that some actions are intrinsically wrong, such as taking a life, but there can be a greater moral imperative such as taking a life to save two other lives....the original act is still a moral truth, but the consequences mitigate that with a greater moral truth. Essentially it means that what is right or wrong is independent of opinion or culture, but not independent of consequences or context. It is not absolute as one might assume at first, but it is still objective or Universal.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the consequences just mitigate the original moral truth, they supercede it, but I suppose that's down to interpretation.
 
estebanrey said:
Morality is a human construct and I don't like the term "objective morality" as in my opinion morality will always be subjective. That doesn't mean you can't reach a consensus as a society but reaching that general agreement doesn't then make something that is subjective objective.

Is a lion being immoral when it kills an buffalo to eat? Or would you prefer it's species died out?
Click to expand...

If objective morality were to exist what basis would it need?

I don't believe that animals have any moral obligations.
 
ringo747 said:
Can animals rape one another? Can animals murder one another? If not, then how come we are more 'morally' advanced? Have we any moral worth at all?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, and do. Not necessarily 'murder' but animals will kill each other without good reason.
 
ringo747 said:
Can animals rape one another? Can animals murder one another? If not, then how come we are more 'morally' advanced?
Click to expand...

Yes on both counts. Twas only the other day I was watching a wildlife documentary where an alpha male lion had just taken over a pack with a pregnant female in. When the lioness gave birth, he killed all the cubs then jumped on the female and started mating with her.

And I disregard your second question because as I said 'morality' to me a human construct and thus you cannot claim we are 'more moral' than another animal because you are basing it on something that only applies to humans.
 
Castiel said:
Do they? Is rape and murder even concepts that an be applied to the Animal Kingdom?
Click to expand...

Why aren't animals capable of rape? Is forced copulation somehow different to rape?

Apes kill each other for things like land and influence. If a human did that, could it not be classed as murder, or at least a morally wrong killing?
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
And I disregard your second question because as I said 'morality' to me a human construct and thus you cannot claim we are 'more moral' than another animal because you are basing it on something that only applies to humans.
Click to expand...

If morality is just a human construct then how can we say we have any moral worth at all? Surely it is just illusory.
 
ringo747 said:
If morality is just a human construct then how can we say we have any moral worth at all? Surely it is just illusory.
Click to expand...

We aren't "more moral" than any other type of animal if that's what you are asking.

But just because something is a human construct doesn't make it useless to humans or 'an illusion'. The Golden Gate Bridge, Christmas and School Education are all human constructs too but that doesn't mean they have no purpose or aren't real.
 
I don't think animals rape and murder each other. Far from it.

And to say we are animals, well, that's true if you're looking from an atheist perspective, but from a Christian perspective we believe we are spiritual beings made in the image of God.
 
estebanrey said:
We aren't "more moral" than any other type of animal if that's what you are asking.

But just because something is a human construct doesn't make it useless to humans or 'an illusion'. The Golden Gate Bridge, Christmas and School Education are all human constructs too but that doesn't mean they have no purpose or aren't real.
Click to expand...

According to your logic, infanticide should be allowed because, afterall, animals often eat their young.
 
zenf1 said:
Why aren't animals capable of rape? Is forced copulation somehow different to rape?

Apes kill each other for things like land and influence. If a human did that, could it not be classed as murder?
Click to expand...

You are anthroporphising actions to assume a moral (and legal) obligation on the part of the animal and assigning legal terminology such as Rape and Murder to them.

First you have to ask whether non-Humans carry such a moral (or legal) obligation and how do you define that obligation over their inherent instinct, particularly in regards to self awareness and the ability to internally assess moral values to counter their instinctual, socio-biological and behavioural imperatives.
 
Last edited:
And btw, I've never seen an animal go into a school and kill innocent children. Neither have I seen an animal engage in cruelty, knowing full well what they are doing.
 
Castiel said:
You are anthroporphising actions to assume a moral (and legal) obligation on the part of the animal and assigning legal terminology such as Rape and Murder to them.
Click to expand...

Rape isn't necessarily a legal term, and I clarified the murder part.

Castiel said:
First you have to ask whether non-Humans carry such a moral (or legal) obligation and how do you define that obligation over their inherent instinct, particularly in regards to self awareness and the ability to internally assess moral values to counter their instinctual, socio-biological and behavioural imperatives.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make the argument that animals have the same obligation to try and be moral as humans do, only that certain acts in the animal kingdom can be just as immoral as those acts happening with humans, from our perspective. I wouldn't expect the animals to see it that way. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom