re: Is there a secular argument against abortions?

quote:

---

Right, we agree on that, as I've said. Where we differ is your argument that moral objectivity exists because of your faith in your god.

---

Moral objectivity requires a standard that applies equally to all humanity, since we are the only species struggling with the concept. My belief is in a moral law of God that is imposed on humanity from outside of humanity which all of humanity is obligated to follow or receive judgement. There is nothing from a secular perspective that can achieve this result of objectivity.

quote:

---

Wrong. The standard relies on your faith, or it becomes nothing. The only weight the Bible has over any other book written by men, is the faith that people put into it. Without that faith, there is no objectivity to the "word."

---

Let me put it this way: if the object of my faith (the Bible) is true, and if God exists, imposes a moral standard on all of humanity, and will judge all people accordingly, then that is an objective standard that is binding on all men, just like any secular standards that are created and enforced. The only difference would be timing and that we can't see the results of that standard while alive.

My faith is the standard does not determine whether or not the standard is real and objective any more than my faith in and acceptance of the laws that the government creates and enforces makes those laws legitimate in a temporal sense.

In the end, I have a basis for a possible objective standard (which I believe is an actual objective standard) whereas those who take a strictly secular approach to morality have none and cannot have one.

quote:

---

Right, and that is why moral objectivity is a myth.

---

In a secular worldview, you are correct. You are speaking on faith as much as I am when I say that there is an objective moral code that exists and will be enforced. My faith doesn't mean I'm right and your faith doesn't mean you're wrong (and vice versa), but with my faith I have the possibility of objectivity in morality while you do not.

Objectivity is important because if you don't have it, then we are all just struggling to impose our individual moral codes on everyone else. There is no real basis for judging others without moral objectivity if you want such judgments to actually mean anything. Like I said before, saying someone is wrong in a worldview that rejects moral objectivity is essentially the same as telling someone they are wrong for liking vanilla ice cream.

quote:

---

Theism doesn't achieve it, either. The very nature of faith doesn't allow for it.

---

I agree with you 100% that theism doesn't achieve it, either. I'm not advocating for theism alone, because theism comes in many flavors. I'm advocating for Christian theism where revelation from God has been provided so that we can know about the law giver as well as the law and on that basis I claim to hold to an objective standard.

You are right about individual objectivity based on faith, though. Faith doesn't make a individual objective, but objectivity isn't based on my faith or my perception of faith, but the object of that faith. If the object of my faith is true, it would be true regardless of whether or not I had faith in it.

quote:

---

Nope, it's completely relevant. You asserted: "when the golden rule is properly defined." You then proceeded to define it in a manner that is neither objectively correct, nor the first or only example

---

Are you saying that it is not objective in that not all people accept this specific formulation or in the sense that the formulation is not an objectively true formulation of the golden rule?

quote:

---

Ok. Science denier. I recognize that leftist philosophy has created an arbitrary construct called personhood, bu that is because the scientific fact is life begins at fertilization.

---

The scientific fact that life begins at fertilization does not necessarily render it immoral to terminate that life. You have to enter the realm of philosophical inquiry to answer that question.

quote:

---

Might makes right is just an axiom that states that those who make the rules are the ones who can enforce the rules.

---

Again, enforcement of bad rules doesn't make them good. Might makes applied.

quote:

---

People who don't hold to a universal moral authority that applies equally to everyone have a hard time justifying their opposition to the actions of others that don't conform to their personal and subjective standard.

---

This is simple not true.

A human declaring "My interpretation of what God told us is true" is really no better than a human declaring "my interpretation of human lessons learned and developed over the centuries is true".

Just cause some human basically says, "my ideas are right because God" doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

It's easy to make a moral code. Most people make theirs up based on outside influences mixed with internal preferences and an understanding of causality

---

I think you meant to say ALL people......

quote:

---

Why does this matter? Because if there is no objective morality then there is no objective standard to judge Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot by.

---

There exists the exact same standard that has always existed. Slapping a God sticker on it never really changed it. It still was human interpretation based on lessons learned through the centuries.

quote:

---

In the end, I have a basis for a possible objective standard (which I believe is an actual objective standard) whereas those who take a strictly secular approach to morality have none and cannot have one.

---

What you're not getting is that those two are EXACTLY the same.

Your basis is no different than the secular basis. You just slapped a God sticker on it.

quote:

---

You are doing the same thing DisplacedBuckeye is doing, namely confusing the subjective belief or interpretation of a standard with the standard, itself.

---

How can any human know what the standard itself is other than via subjective belief or interpretation?

You act like these are separate things yet, by definition, they cannot be separated.

I mean yeah. I suppose if God himself comes down and gives a speech on His views of morality, then God will be the SOURCE of morality.

Until then, all you have is what a bunch of humans say he said.

And those humans can't even AGREE!

quote:

---

I believe that the Bible has only one right interpretation and all Christians are trying to find out what that is

---

I believe that all humans are trying to interpret what morality is based upon centuries of experience.

What I just said is exactly equal to what you just said. Only difference is, you slapped a God sticker on it.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, due to our sinfulness as well as lack of thorough studying, Christians misunderstand the Bible in many ways.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

The lack of unity isn't a condemnation on the Bible but a condemnation on those who are reading it.

---

I'm not condemning the Bible. I'm saying that as long as humans are doing the reading of it, then theirs is as "secular" an opinion of morality as anyone else's.

quote:

---

Again, enforcement of bad rules doesn't make them good. Might makes applied.

---

Clearly my statements aren't being understood as I anticipated so I'll change course.

In a world without moral objectivity, what is "right", morally speaking, is whatever any individual accepts as right (moral relativism). In a society made up of individuals, what is right is determined by the one moral standard that is enforced by whoever has the power to enforce it. Typically that is the government, but it could be an individual who has the strength to impose their will on others.

You're still trying to say that just because a moral standard is enforced that it doesn't make it "right", but my point is that the standard enforced is just as "right" as any other standard because subjectivity requires it to be that way. In essence, it is right because it exists. If you want to look at it another way, it isn't right or wrong at all since nothing is really right or wrong.

quote:

---

This is simple not true.

A human declaring "My interpretation of what God told us is true" is really no better than a human declaring "my interpretation of human lessons learned and developed over the centuries is true".

Just cause some human basically says, "my ideas are right because God" doesn't make it so.

---

I agree with you, which is why the claims have to be examined. The authority doesn't rest with the person that is making the claim, but the claim has to be examined for people to determine its validity.

And while you say that someone making a claim of objectivity due to their particular faith is no better than another standard, you have to concede that it is no worse than any other standard, because, again, no standard is better or worse than any other if moral subjectivity (and the absence of an objective standard) is a reality.

quote:

---

I think you meant to say ALL people......

---

I meant what I said. I'd rather not say "all people" do this or do that if I'm not sure that my statement applies to all people. There may be some people who form their moral code differently than what I stated, but what's important is that most people do form a moral code based on what I said. I don't like to subject the rule to the will of the exception unless I have to.

quote:

---

There exists the exact same standard that has always existed. Slapping a God sticker on it never really changed it. It still was human interpretation based on lessons learned through the centuries.

---

...and that standard has no basis in objectivity which means "lessons learned through the centuries" isn't better or worse than any other standard, even if I were to accept your premise (I don't). While that may be great to rule your own society by lessons learned in the past, that doesn't give them more validity than Hitler's leadership and imposition of his moral code on his people and thus you still have no right to judge him for it.

You also have to remember that "lessons learned throughout history" is no different than comparing and contrasting your standard to other standards that exist today. A review is performed and conclusions are made to help you, as an individual, feel better about what you think is right or wrong, but in the end, the same result exists: you have formed a singular standard that you like that may be different than a standard that others like, and your standard isn't better than theirs, because it can't be, objectively speaking.