Philosophy of Ethics megathread

[GuyFromSingapore]

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

 

[Deleted member 46979]

the philosophy of ethnics is gibsmedats x infinity

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

I might do both good things and bad things.

I might do good things sometimes.

But why do I do good things when I do good things?

Will I be able to do good things all the time?

What will not make me do good things, when I do not do good things and why?

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

@incelmogger

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

The importance of doing good things is obviously to minimize suffering and pain... But that is a feeling...

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Why should I do good deeds?

For personal benefits(then they are not good deeds at all, and they have motives), for the greater good of all? To do a heroic deed in the universe?

 

[Deleted member 45391]

All people recognize some moral code. Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This is God.

We see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

 

[Deleted member 46979]

All people recognize some moral code. Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This is God.

We see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

beauty, truth, god, and goodness are all the same thing.

 

[pig_face]

No such thing as morals. Just look out for hypocrisy.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

All people recognize some moral code. Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This is God.

We see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

If this law is constant and universal.

- why are some individuals more moral than others?

- why are the same individuals more moral on some days over others?

Is your God frivolous? Does He shine more sometimes and less others?

"law requires a lawgiver"

Morality is self-evident. It speaks for itself. It needs no authority.

If God is moral.

- why do people suffer?
- why do children die from cancer?
- why is there no permanent and infinite happiness for every creature?
- why do good people suffer?
- why doesn't God prevent immorality?
- why doesn't God reveal dictates in criminal cases and deliver perfect justice?

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

All people recognize some moral code. Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This is God.

We see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

If I just surrender and follow to what God says then where is my own sense of morality stemming from my own Self?

"Thus, I have explained to you this knowledge that is more secret than all secrets. Ponder over it deeply, and then do as you wish." ~ Chapter 18, verse 63 Bhagavad Gita

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Humans beings are flawed and imperfect, unable to account for their own natures, subject to what God puts them through.

God knows the completeness and perfection of any concept. Being their Lord, He is responsible for their welfare and state of affairs.

When His creatures get out of line. He intervenes and sets them straight.

That's why Moses sent down the commandments.

 

[Deleted member 45391]

If this law is constant and universal.

- why are some individuals more moral than others?

- why are the same individuals more moral on some days over others?

Is your God frivolous? Does He shine more sometimes and less others?

"law requires a lawgiver"

Morality is self-evident. It speaks for itself. It needs no authority.

If God is moral.

- why do people suffer?
- why do children die from cancer?
- why is there no permanent and infinite happiness for every creature?
- why do good people suffer?
- why doesn't God prevent immorality?
- why doesn't God reveal dictates in criminal cases and deliver perfect justice?

1. God divinely ordained us free will, obviously, none of us are robots or puppets.

2. Why “ought” a person be good, if there is no God or if God is truly immoral? If the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.

This leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.

In order to say, “God is morally wrong,” one has to define morality in a way that justifies that claim. But what meaningful standard can exist, other than God, for moral principles?

Apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is immoral” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Humans beings are flawed and imperfect, unable to account for their own natures, subject to what God puts them through.

God knows the completeness and perfection of any concept. Being their Lord, He is responsible for their welfare and state of affairs.

When His creatures get out of line. He intervenes and sets them straight.

That's why Moses sent down the commandments.

Nevermind. The Old Testament accepts slavery...

Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

1. God divinely ordained us free will, obviously, none of us are robots or puppets.

2. Why “ought” a person be good, if there is no God or if God is truly immoral? If the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.

This leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.

In order to say, “God is morally wrong,” one has to define morality in a way that justifies that claim. But what meaningful standard can exist, other than God, for moral principles?

Apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is immoral” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.

- if you say "God is moral". How will you know that God is infact moral? Is everything that God does simply moral by virtue of God doing it, simply because He is God?

- if everything that God does is moral, because God is moral, than we cannot tell if God is infact moral because God is presumed to be moral, all the time. Then morality would be pointless because we would be unable to perceive and discern it.

- something does not need to be perfect in order for us to follow it, we try our best, just because you are not Omniscient you do not say "well I don't know everything, my intelligence is finite, I am right sometimes and wrong other times, so I should stop thinking all together and use my intelligence" now do you?

- why are you trying to convince me to follow your God as the ultimate standards of effect morality. Why doesn't your God do it Himself?

- I don't think morality is subjective, if morality was subjective then why do we even agree on what what we agree? Why do we feel guilt and remorse doing a bad deed?

If God tortures you and says to you "this is for your best interest, I love you", is it by default good only because "God is good and knows best"?

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

1. God divinely ordained us free will, obviously, none of us are robots or puppets.

2. Why “ought” a person be good, if there is no God or if God is truly immoral? If the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.

This leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.

In order to say, “God is morally wrong,” one has to define morality in a way that justifies that claim. But what meaningful standard can exist, other than God, for moral principles?

Apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is immoral” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.

The fact that your dumbass keeps arguing "but muh Gawd!" using your own rationality tells me your God does a bad job at instilling Himself and all you do is keep differing to Him.

You should just say "shut up and submit to God" instead of rationalizing anything on your own.

Just say "God is the absolute of morality, case closed, just follow everything He says".

 

[Deleted member 45391]

The truth is, we are created to know, love and serve God, so that we may have eternal joy with Him, and all of us have flipped off God, our Father, in some way. All have sinned (Romans 3:23), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23a). God has “just cause” to wipe us all out; the fact that He doesn’t is proof of His mercy. It’s hard to even put into words how merciful God is. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He doesn’t force you to submit to Him. You can go your own way, if you think your way is better. Personally, I realized that going my own way, let’s just say, didn’t turn out so good.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

The truth is, we are created to know, love and serve God so that we may have eternal joy with him, and all of us have flipped off God, our Father, in some way. All have sinned (Romans 3:23), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23a). God has “just cause” to wipe us all out; the fact that He doesn’t is proof of His mercy. It’s hard to even put into words how merciful God is. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He doesn’t force you to submit to Him. You can go your own way, if you think your way is better. Personally, I realized that going my own way, let’s just say, didn’t turn out so good.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.

- God is our Creator and gave us our lives, He knows our natures and is responsible for us coming into existence

- if He has just causes for killing us then it is His fault because we owe our coming into the world to Him

- God not wiping out cartel members is NOT Mercy.

God must put an end to extreme evil. His unwillingness to do so, betrays His indifference to His own Creation which He is responsible for, holding Him irresponsible

- sinning is the natural state of all creatures because saints are rare.

- if God is wholly good why did He create Satan to corrupt people? Why do people succumb to Satan?

Creatures tend to sin... Why do we sin... Why does God allow us to sin... Are our Souls created by God or is it uncreated?

 

[longjohnmong]

utilitarianism /thread

 

[Deleted member 45391]

- God is our Creator and gave us our lives, He knows our natures and is responsible for us coming into existence

- if He has just causes for killing us then it is His fault because we owe our coming into the world to Him

- God not wiping out cartel members is NOT Mercy.

God must put an end to extreme evil. His unwillingness to do so, betrays His indifference to His own Creation which He is responsible for, holding Him irresponsible

- sinning is the natural state of all creatures because saints are rare.

- if God is wholly good why did He create Satan to corrupt people? Why do people succumb to Satan?

Creatures tend to sin... Why do we sin... Why does God allow us to sin... Are our Souls created by God or is it uncreated?

There have been many questions asked by many men. And many men have gone. But the Word of God has never gone.

 

[wollet2]

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

There have been many questions asked by many men. And many men have gone. But the Word of God has never gone.

God is an evil fuck that pardons people only because they worship Him.

God is basically saying here "yeah... even if you are bastard it's okay so long as you worship Me"

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 30

My only counter to this is that "if someone obeys God, then they would obey God when it comes to not doing bad deeds".

Compare with the Old Testament where the first few Commandments are about God Himself and the worship of Him.

Is an immoral Theistic better than a moral Atheist?