I used to be a religious person. I had different belief but I think I can comprehend you.
Then why people are scattered?
Because people are not perfect. Because everyone is different. Because people have freewill. There are many reasons.
The truth is a set of facts and people cannot be scattered on accepting them.
Then why do people differ every time they see the same video. The video shows everyone the same set of events. Yet people get different opinions on the same objective piece of evidence.
If the same people are in a math class then they will have the same opinion on subject matter.
Sounds like you,ve never been in a classroom. Thats why in every cllass, some pass and some fail.
We are talking about a God who is omniscient. Presumably He is able to teach whatever he wants in easy language everybody can understand.
True and He does. But some people don’t want to listen. They are more concerned with their own wants.
One can do whatever he wants but he cannot deny the truth.
Anyone who denies God, denies the truth.
@STT Suffice it to say I am not convinced, but that should not be surprising to you . We should start with a common understanding of what morality is. I think most people would define morality as a system of behavior that is right or good. It goes much deeper than that I think but it is a good place to start. Does this definition sound acceptable? If not can you propose a suitable definition?
Why do you think an intelligent being is needed to justify it? I would agree that an intelligence is needed to justify it, but I would draw a distinction between created and uncreated intelligence and argue that only uncreated intelligence can justify morality.
I agree with your definition if in behavior you also consider all decisions made by the person.
God is omniscient therefore He could speak with a language we can understand objective morality. This means that this language which is simple exist and can be found by us too (because we can understand it when it is said by God).
The Eternal Law of God applies to all persons alike whether it is known or understood. (Sort of like moral ‘gravity’.)
But “mortal sin” in Catholicism requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge of the ‘infraction’ and willful disobedience.
Yes I accept that too. That’s good, we can move forward then.
OK I think I see where you are going with this, but I think this might be a separate issue from the title of the thread. I think it is possible to establish that God justifies objective morality without commenting on whether He should make it known to us in the way you suggest or even at all.
Anyway, I think we need to establish what it would mean for something to be “good” in the first place before we can ask what would justify it. I would argue that, to say that something is good for A, we need to say that A has a specific end or goal. For instance, if someone murders another person, we say that this is “bad” because, by murdering someone, he is in a state he should not be in and really ought to be in another state (the “saintly” state, say, where he has respect for other people’s lives). Whether this end or goal is objective or subjective and depends on God and/or humans has not been shown yet, but do you agree that this is what we mean when we say something is “good”?
Still not sure. For example, is burning someone alive at the stake objectively right or objectively wrong?
[quote=“balto, post:77, topic:453574”]
Anyway, I think we need to establish what it would mean for something to be “good” in the first place before we can ask what would justify it.
The problem is that I cannot define what that what (the bold part above) is therefore I cannot say what is right/good.
I just argue that a specific end or goal could be personal.
There are psychopaths who enjoy killing and can in principle justify murdering from their perspective.
That is subject of another thread: Why God has not shown the truth yet?
Well then let me see if I can define it. I think we can both agree that we need to be able to define it if we are to have any kind of objective morality.
Agreed, however if it is only personal and nothing more, then it is only subjective. I am guessing that’s why you think any intelligence can in principle justify morality?
Precisely, that is actually where I was intending to go next. Even actions most people consider evil can be given personal justification and can have personal ends or goals. We just need some way to say objectively that it is an evil end. If it is going to be objective, then the goodness needs to be tied to reality somehow.
One way is to link goodness to actually-existing being or reality. I don’t think this works though because an end or goal can imply that the end or goal is not yet achieved, and not yet actual. If we have a person that wants to give alms (a good act) and a person that wants to murder (an evil act), neither act is actual yet, so actual being cannot distinguish between them.
But we need some principle to distinguish the two, so I will introduce the notion of potentiality or potential being. By doing this, I can say that the almsgiving is a potentiality for more fully actual humanness. Murderousness is not actual nor potential being, it is simply not part of human nature. So one who gives alms acts in a way that is directed towards actual goodness whereas one who murders acts towards no actual goodness or even being at all. Reason or intelligence is what grasps nature, so the one who acts towards actual goodness acts in accordance with right reason (i.e. acts morally) while the one who does not act towards actual goodness acts against right reason (i.e. acts sinfully or immorally).
At this point I have not explained how potential being can be justified (I will do that shortly) but do you think that introducing potentiality can give us a useful principle whereby to distinguish objective good from evil?
Ok. Let’s see.
I am question objective morality with the aim to show that it does not exist.
I think what you said is invalid for a simple reason. Feeling and desire generally are part of our instinct. There are majority who have common feeling or desire. They are minority who have the same minor feeling and desire (like gay people). They are very minor people who have desire to kill people. So at the end everything is related to our instinct and how do we feel in a situation. Therefore you cannot find any reason based on anything (we are only intellectual and emotional beings and here we are discussing that we are only following our feeling (feeling is the end) in any act) to prove that objective morality exist.
Before I can respond to this, I think you need to clarify the meaning of the word “feeling” in this context. When you say that “feeling is the end” I take that to mean that everyone always and everywhere acts for the goal of “sense delight.” Is that an accurate characterization of what you have written?
Additionally, when you say that everything is related to instinct and how we feel in a situation, do you mean that this “feeling” is a sense-prompting, in which case we necessary act for an end? Or are you just speaking loosely and mean to say that “people always do what they believe is the right thing to do?”