Morality: Who Needs God?

AISH ^ | N/A | by Rabbi Nechemia Coopersmith

[HumanaeVitae]

Your whole post was nothing more than warmed-over Objectivism.

The 'force and fraud' exception is utterly shattered by the 'ought-is' perplex. For three hundred years since David Hume first articulated this problem, and since G.E. Moore reformulated it in the early 20th Century, no one has ever been able to derive an objective 'ought' (the way we should act) from an empirical 'is' (the way things are).

What does this mean? It means that ethics (oughts) are logically non-derivable by ratiocination; that there are no "purely reasonable" means of acting. Rand, pathetically, tried to get past this barrier by stating that "there can be no disagreements between rational men", which is hilariously false. Rational men disagree about normative issues all the time, precisely because there is no way to rationally derive them.

So, if rational men cannot agree about the way things "ought" to be, the only way to have any semblance of order is to impose one "ought" over another "ought"; if one side disagrees to the point of non-compliance, then the only way to preserve order is to decide the issue by...force.

Randianism, and libertarianism, are self-refuting belief systems.

[HumanaeVitae]

No, Barry, she did not. Not logically, anyway.

[OWK]

Randianism, and libertarianism, are self-refuting belief systems.

Then you should have no troubke refuting them...

[Nix 2]

If you read my earlier post, you would see that I have said pretty much the same. Ultimately, the CHOICE is yours and yours alone. Your choice is between good and evil. HOW you choose depends on the strength that comes from within, and that strength isn't there by accident. Like I said. We CAME with instructions, whatever the interpretation.
Abortion is evil, but the human mind can rationalize and make it SOUND right. Sounding and being are two differest things.
G-d was literally *humanized* in the OT. He lost his temper and then forgave when He cooled down. He allowed Himself to be negotiated with...but that only reinforces the belief that we were created in His image. Maybe we don't LOOK like G-d. Maybe it is the way our minds work that we can think, be, and do.

And, free, DNA is life no matter how you splice it. CREATE DNA from nothing? Nope.

[HumanaeVitae]

Read the post. I did.

[Barry Goldwater]

Excellent counterpoint at:

http://religion.aynrand.org/

[realpatriot71]

So it would appear that assembling DNA in the proper order is the process of creating life.

I've gto to stop ya here freeeee. Placing a different genome into an already alive bacteria, might be man-made speciation, but it is in no way the creation of life.

[OWK]

So did I.

[OWK]

Could you do me a favor and tell me the moral code of the God of Abraham?

[freeeee]

America certainly doesn't need God! Look how well everything has been going the last decade without Him. We're in hock for trillions, our industrial base is in China, there are no real jobs left, the Chinese and North Koreans are in postion to fire missiles up our collective ass!

Um, there are no atheists in high office I know of. Religious people did those things, lest you forget.

Case in point: "We're in hock for trillions". Well, we've just broke the record for national debt, and our president is the most religious in recent history.

Your claims don't match reality. Not even close.

[OWK]

Is enslavement of innocents permissable under the moral code of the God of Abraham?

How about the murder of innocents?

Is that permitted?

[HumanaeVitae]

You refuted Objectivism as well? Congratulations.

But if you meant that you refuted me, then please tell me where I went wrong.

Please let me know how ethics are logically derivable from empirical facts.

You'd win quite a few awards if it holds up...

[Nix 2]

Nope. They SAID they did. Many horrible things have been done in the NAME of G-d. And besides, their *god* is a moonbeing. Hirohito was a *god* to the Japanese. What is your definition of G-d?

[HumanaeVitae]

Is enslavement of innocents permissable under the moral code of the God of Abraham?

How about the murder of innocents?

Is that permitted?

Everything is permitted under moral relativism. Which is exactly what your belief system is.

[OWK]

I am a moral absolutist of the first order.

[OWK]

Many horrible things have been done in the NAME of G-d.

If the Old Testament is to be believed... many horrible things have been done at the COMMAND of God.

Slaughter of innocent children.
Enslavement.
To name a few...

[Barry Goldwater]

From the Cathechism:

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

Are you saying that this is untrue?

[HumanaeVitae]

Really? But you're an atheist, aren't you?

[OWK]

Really? But you're an atheist, aren't you?

I am.

And a moral absolutist as well.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. Recognition of this truth, provides the foundation of a moral code. Initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are immoral inasmuch as they act to infringe man’s pursuit of his happiness as he defines it. All initiated force, threat of initiated force, or fraud, are immoral, whether perpetrated by an individual or by a collection of individuals sometimes known as government.

It is not a truth. It is merely a convenient axiom that libertarians pulled out of their rear ends to base their whole philosophy upon.