Re: "objective moral standards"?
Ian Dorion (dorioni@intellinet.com)
Thu, 01 May 1997 09:38:18 -0600
Jim Faubel wrote:
>
> >McDonald 4/29 (to Izz)
> >Bill's question was one that we have been asking for years: >"Why, since
> you do not believe in God, in an objective >moral standard, do you object
> to anything that God did?"
>
> >Jerry (also to Izz)
> > All you can say is that there are some things that
> >he did, which you don't like. You don't believe in >objective morality,
> therefore you cannot believe in >objective moral atrocities. If you don't
> have objective >moral atrocities, then all you have is subjective moral
> >atrocities, and what might be a moral atrocity in your >mind, might not be
> in another's.
>
> JEF
> Can someone explain to me what "objective moral standard" Jerry is
> referring to? I subjectively presume he is referring to the supposed
> pronouncement of a set of rules by an supposedly
> omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent yaada yaada yaada deity (in this case
> Jahweh) which were supposedly inerrantly recorded in the Bible, but what is
> it about these rules that makes them OBJECTIVE? My dictionary defines
> objective as: "dealing with external facts and not with thoughts and
> feelings; free from personal prejudices; unbiased."
> Jerry seems to think that because this set of rules comes from the
> self-proclaimed creator of the universe (in this particular case, Jahweh -
> as opposed to all the other claimants to the title of "God") that this IN
> ITSELF makes these rules "objective". That would make EVERYTHING in the
> Bible (the supposed "word" of this self-proclaimed creator) "objective" and
> EVERYTHING OUTSIDE the Bible "subjective". No wonder it's so hard
> to get through to the inerrantists. They are using a different criteria
> for what is "objective". Any facts that don't conform to their criteria
> are simply labeled "subjective" and dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
> ************************************
> James E. Faubel
> jef@europa.com
>
> "Welcome to the planet Earth, where
> belief masquerades as knowledge."
> --> This way to the Unasked Questions
> <-- That way to the Unquestioned Answers
> anonymous
> ************************************
(Ian 5/1) It seems to me that when Jerry speaks of 'objective' morality
he is in fact speaking of 'imaginary' morality. So in answering his
arguements, if you would substitute 'objective' with 'imaginary' or even
'objective/imaginary', I think you would get your point across.