Catholic ping!
Right is that which is in conformity with our human nature. Our human nature informs every atom and every cell. It is not subject to change by governments.
Very good. I’m a big fan of presenting an argument that is both succinct and rational. Bravo.
Humans operate from cost versus benefit.
Morality/gods are constructs to make us versus them, so it must benefit,but everything has a downside to it.
Example: would Hitler getting aborted been moral,would assassinating him been moral and just at any point in his time line? How about if his parents were killed?
Without moral law, the rule is, if it feels good, do it.
I believe there is a reason God tells us of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Also His admonition not to eat thereof, lest we would surely die.
Every human being now has that knowledge in them.
It is a fundamental problem, because that ability to discern good and evil, is too easily confused as a counterfeit substitute for our direct relationship with God through faith in Christ. As soon as we slip into that reliance, instead of through faith in Christ first, we fall out of fellowship with Him.
It manifests the nature of sin.
One step removed, morality can either be used as a counterfeit substitute for being in fellowship with Him, or it can scar us into legalism and good works without faith, which are simply good for nothingness in His Plan.
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
You mean like homosexuality, a practice that is almost universally condemned in every society around the globe and has been for all of recorded history, but that is now being labeled as "normal"?
"God does not exist" is an absolute statement.
“consensus” is just another way of saying “mob rule”.
Another reason to appreciate our founders framework of a the US being a republic - not a democracy.
Another time indeed, as atheists can argue that correct human behavior is that which is good for man to achieve self-preservation, knowledge of the truth, propagation and education of the species, and social existence...
It is what ultimately defines these things that is the issue. Stalin and the like would argue achieving these goals required their policies, as would popes who required the extermination of those Rome decreed were heretics, as did early Prots.
However, at least the latter could appeal to a document that came to be established as the supreme s wholly God-inspired standard on faith and morality, bue to its Divine qualities and attestation, even though, as with a Constitution, it can be subject to varying degrees of interpretation.
In contrast, in atheism the individual is the supreme standard, not simply in deciding he will assent to one and interpret it, but atheism collectively rejects any one sure and supreme standard, and each can autocratically assert his own morality is superior to all moral documents, even that of God.
That is an example of disintegrated mode of thought which results in subjectivism, emotionalism, whim worship,relativism, and skepticism.
Objective moral principles are the consequence of a rational standard of value, such as preservation of life, operating in a particular context.
There is an intrinsic human nature, inherent in what Homo Sapiens is.
A moral code which aligns with that nature will produce a society which works and lasts.
A moral code which goes against human nature will produce a society which quickly collapses under its own contradictions.
As an example, Communism requires people who all practice altruism, or order to not collapse. It collapses.
The Free Market takes the intrinsic human nature to want to benefit the survival of self and family, and channels it in ways where people benefit themselves by producing products and services which satisfy the desires of others. The society grows and prospers to the extent that it stays within reality.
Why not both?
Americans are unusual in that they divide the ideas of morality and ethics. And this goes all the way back to the founding of America. At the time, the kings and princes of Europe claimed that they were anointed by God, which gave them the legitimacy to rule. Even worse, they claimed that because of this, *their* laws were written in heaven; so to oppose them was not just to break the law, but acts of defiance against God.
Ptui!, said the founding fathers. While giving full faith and credit to the morality of heaven, they were quite clear that our constitution and laws are written by men, so they could be changed by men without offending God.
But this caused a divide in the law. And while there is considerable overlap, Americans equate morality with the laws of heaven. But they are less trustful of it, because it varies from faith to faith, and even from church to church. And they get downright distrustful of politicians who frequently proclaim their morality.
Ethics, on the other hand, Americans see as conforming to the secular law. They see it as far more objective, so if a politician touts his ethics, they can get a clear view as to whether he is ethical or a liar.
If there is no God it is all just made up.
Thanks for posting this.
“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer” (”If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”) Voltaire 1768
If society cannot determine right and wrong, it is not a society.