Who should rule test?

[mattskramer]

Euthansia is a complicated topic but the majority of Americans still believe aggresive euthansia is wrong because we believe human life is good. Jack Kevorkian had his doctor's license pulled in 1991 in Michigan. In fact, Dr. Death was just let out of prison in June of this year due to failing health where he has been doing time for second degree murder since 1999.

And what exactly makes you think that the slippery slope or domino effect will NOT happen? Perhaps that is why only 3 places in the world legally allow assisted suicide: Oregon, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Does popular opinion (a majority of people) make something right or wrong? I thought that there were absolutes outside of popular opinion. I like the fact that you included the relative term "aggressive". What might seem aggressive to you might not seem aggressive to me.

I have a straight yes-no question for you: Do you think that in some very very rare and special case, euthanasia should be allowed?

Not everything becomes a slippery slope.

I compare and contract things. Consider the ingestion of unhealthy things. We allow people to smoke cigarettes even though such behavior us unhealthy. We allow people to drink alcohol. There is a small slope in that several people are arguing that we should allow people to smoke marijuana. Yet, I don’t see many people calling on the legalization of cocaine. Consider the speed limit. We allowed people to drive 55. We raised it to 65. In some places, one is allowed to drive 70 miles per hour; yet, I don’t see many people calling on us to be allowed to drive 90. Consider the Vietnam War. There was concern that if we leave Vietnam, communism may expand and completely take over Southeast Asia. If you don’t like that example, consider homosexuality. While civil unions might be allowed, if such happens do you really think that there will be a groundswell of people demanding that bestiality be legalized? Consider what we are allowed to do with animals and what we are not allowed to do with animals. After all this time, there are still laws against animal cruelty, though circuses, dog races, and horse races have been around for a long time. I guess that what I’m trying to explain is that even with relativism and allowances, there are limits that society still supports.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does popular opinion (a majority of people) make something right or wrong? I thought that there were absolutes outside of popular opinion. I like the fact that you included the relative term "aggressive". What might seem aggressive to you might not seem aggressive to me.

I have a straight yes-no question for you: Do you think that in some very very rare and special case, euthanasia should be allowed?

Not everything becomes a slippery slope.

I compare and contract things. Consider the ingestion of unhealthy things. We allow people to smoke cigarettes even though such behavior us unhealthy. We allow people to drink alcohol. There is a small slope in that several people are arguing that we should allow people to smoke marijuana. Yet, I don’t see many people calling on the legalization of cocaine. Consider the speed limit. We allowed people to drive 55. We raised it to 65. In some places, one is allowed to drive 70 miles per hour; yet, I don’t see many people calling on us to be allowed to drive 90. Consider the Vietnam War. There was concern that if we leave Vietnam, communism may expand and completely take over Southeast Asia. If you don’t like that example, consider homosexuality. While civil unions might be allowed, if such happens do you really think that there will be a groundswell of people demanding that bestiality be legalized? Consider what we are allowed to do with animals and what we are not allowed to do with animals. After all this time, there are still laws against animal cruelty, though circuses, dog races, and horse races have been around for a long time. I guess that what I’m trying to explain is that even with relativism and allowances, there are limits that society still supports.

Allowing someone not brain dead to be killed is wrong. Suicide is wrong. assisted suicide is VERY wrong. As soon as you start allowing the murder of people for convience sake you start down a path that is not going to end well. Look at abortion, we allow women to murder their children legally for no reason at all. And we have people fighting to encourage that murder for science sake for the harvesting of stem cells.

Allow assisted suicide and then it becomes for the good of the community, or if we slip into government controlled medicine then it will be for the good of the system.

And you are wrong there are people on this board that HAVE argued ALL drugs should be legal. That we should just collect taxes on it and that an adult is free to make that decision on their own.

 

[mattskramer]

Allowing someone not brain dead to be killed is wrong. Suicide is wrong. assisted suicide is VERY wrong.

Wow. Let me get this straight. You hear from an old friend or family member who has lived a very long life. He is over 100 years old. He is of sound mind but he is in practically constant severe excruciating pain thanks to some disease and/or naturally deteriorating body. He is blind and almost totally deaf. His muscles ache and seem to scream at him. Even his bones seem to ache. It hurts him to do practically anything, provided that he can do anything. He can’t care for himself as his bodily functions are no longer under his control and his self-mobility is almost non-existent. People must feed him, bathe him, wipe him after he is helped to the toilet, put his clothes on and remove them, and do practically everything for him. When he is not suffering nearly intolerable pain and feeling humiliated and helpless, he is tired. He has lived a good long life and wants to end it now. He does not want to go on with this incurable painful debilitating and helpless condition. He is not only broke but also deep in debt from paying his medical bills. Friends had family members have helped and may want to continue to help. Yet, ultimately, they love him and want to do what he wants. It is his life and he has to answer for it. Yet, he is too weak and scared to take his own life. He manages to get a letter dictated and signed in front of a notary and several impartial witnesses and attorneys indicating that he no longer wishes to live. He turns to you and begs and pleads with you to simply give his some lethal drug that will put him to sleep permanently. You are telling me that not only would you not do it but also it is your opinion that no one should do it. It is your opinion that mercy killing should never be allowed under any circumstances.

Please read the above paragraph carefully and tell me that I am wrong. If I am correct in your view about this, then you are more cold-hearted thanks to your “absolutes” than I ever imagined.

As soon as you start allowing the murder of people for convience sake you start down a path that is not going to end well. Look at abortion, we allow women to murder their children legally for no reason at all. And we have people fighting to encourage that murder for science sake for the harvesting of stem cells.

You are not murdering people for convenience sake. You are killing elderly people of sound mind because they are begging you to do so. Abortion is an entirely different subject. For one thing, the fetus is not asking to be killed.

Allow assisted suicide and then it becomes for the good of the community, or if we slip into government controlled medicine then it will be for the good of the system.

Just as I said with the issue of abortion, the issue of government-controlled medicine is a different issue with different pros and cons.

And you are wrong there are people on this board that HAVE argued ALL drugs should be legal. That we should just collect taxes on it and that an adult is free to make that decision on their own.

Carefully read my paragraph again. I said that I don’t see many people calling on the legalization of cocaine.

I’m confident that some people exist who loudly call for the legalization of all drugs. I also think that there are people who think that interracial marriage should be outlawed. There are probably people who think that Black people should be removed from America and sent to Africa. Yet, I think that the number is very small.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic:
I wasn't using an absolutist statement, that was my conclusion you read and as such it was the final part of my thinking on the topic. I've read, I've thought and I've concluded that all morals are relative, there are no moral absolutes. If you disagree with my conclusion then please feel free to challenge it.
My arguments don't appear in my conclusion, they preceded it. But I'm more than happy to explain them.

Eagle:
Don't you understand that by saying, even as a conclusion of your thinking, that "all morals are relative, there are no moral absolutes" you are making an absolutist statement? You are claiming that there are no moral absolutes… which is an absolute in itself.

A moral absolute is a concept and it’s the concept we’re discussing. It is a recognised and agreed concept. Absolute zero is apparently a known physical phenomenon in physics. Absolute zero has nothing to do with absolutism in morals and absolutism in morals has nothing to do with the nature of my conclusion. My conclusion is either correct or it’s wrong but as a conclusion it has to be definite. Let’s not engage in semantics to try and prove a point. My conclusion hasn’t changed.

Diuretic:
That's no proof of absolutes, those are just expressions of your own moral outlook. You like to see a baby smile (who doesn't, we're hard-wired to nurture infants). Raping a baby is wrong because we say it is, the act of intercourse with a baby is a physiological act, we call that act "rape" and we call rape "wrong".

Eagle:
You cannot prove that absolutes do not exist. Why do you think it is wrong to rape a baby? I'm sure there is more to it than just "because we say it is"… don't you think?

I know I will find it hard to prove a negative so I won’t try. Why do I think it’s wrong to rape a baby? There are a whole lot of reasons. One is that the baby isn’t a moral agent and can’t consent to sex. The other is that the baby could be terribly damaged, injured and that’s deleterious to the baby. So the act is harmful.

Diuretic:
No proof here, just assertions of personal belief, highly subjective, not objective in the least, no proof.

Eagle:
You cannot provide proof to the otherwise.

Stalemate.

Diuretic:
Moral absolutists are actually moral dictators. They don't think through the issues, they merely tick off their values from a predetermined list, usually from some sort of ideological source.

Eagle:
No, moral absolutists are not moral dictators…they are just people who wish to have their beliefs reflected in good laws. Moral relativists like to see lax laws. However, when you look at the results of lax laws it appears society breaks down and many problems and much suffering is created.

Good laws are usually not created with ideas of moral absolutism underpinning them.

Diuretic:
There are no more absolutes, moral absolutists like to think there are but they can never prove their argument.

Eagle:
And once again you spit out another one of your absolutist statements…methinks you like to have it both ways…pls prove that absolutes do not exist...if you can do so without making an absolutist statement...

Please see my comments at the beginning of this particular post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simply amazing. You do not trust our Government under Bush but have no problem allowing the Government in the future to simply allow murder because someone may or may not have ask for it to occur.

Pretending that Government control of medicine won't become an issue is beyond ignorant. We are headed down that path, which by the way, as I recall YOU Matt support. Money gets tight and suddenly a hell of lot of sickly elderly and retards on the Government dole are gonna become assisted suicides. you can Count on it.

Give the power to legally murder to the Government or people in society or both and your not going to like where that goes. But hey you probably won't be around when the Government starts cleaning up the old folks homes cause they just cost to much, clearing out the disabled facuilities cause we just don't have the resources.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Does popular opinion (a majority of people) make something right or wrong? I thought that there were absolutes outside of popular opinion.

Yes there are absolutes outside of popular opinion. Popular opinion (a majority) does not necessarily make something right or wrong. However, you were the one to originally bring up the popularity card:

We used to think that it was absolutely wrong to assist someone in killing himself (or we never though about it). Now, I think that most people agree that under very special circumstances, assisted suicide is okay.

I have a straight yes-no question for you: Do you think that in some very very rare and special case, euthanasia should be allowed?

No.

As the Catholic Church says:

By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.

It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.

Death does not always come in dramatic circumstances after barely tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testimonies which confirm one another lead one to the conclusion that nature itself has made provision to render more bearable at the moment of death separations that would be terribly painful to a person in full health. Hence it is that a prolonged illness, advanced old age, or a state of loneliness or neglect can bring about psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of death.

Nevertheless the fact remains that death, often preceded or accompanied by severe and prolonged suffering, is something which naturally causes people anguish.

Physical suffering is certainly an unavoidable element of the human condition; on the biological level, it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost.

According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ's passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father's will. Therefore, one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf. Mt. 27:34). Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor's advice.

http://www.euthanasia.com/vatican.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A moral absolute is a concept and it’s the concept we’re discussing. It is a recognised and agreed concept. Absolute zero is apparently a known physical phenomenon in physics. Absolute zero has nothing to do with absolutism in morals and absolutism in morals has nothing to do with the nature of my conclusion. My conclusion is either correct or it’s wrong but as a conclusion it has to be definite. Let’s not engage in semantics to try and prove a point. My conclusion hasn’t changed.

Your conclusion doesn't matter. Truth is true whether or not you believe it.

Relativism can't be true because it is dependent on an individual's viewpoint. Each individual has a different viewpoint. There could be many viewpoints of the same event. In fact, one of the viewpoints could be that the event did not even occur. If relativism were true then the world would be full of contradictions. Contractions can't both be true at the same time.

 

[Diuretic]

Your conclusion doesn't matter. Truth is true whether or not you believe it.

Relativism can't be true because it is dependent on an individual's viewpoint. Each individual has a different viewpoint. There could be many viewpoints of the same event. In fact, one of the viewpoints could be that the event did not even occur. If relativism were true then the world would be full of contradictions. Contractions can't both be true at the same time.

Not just an individual's viewpoint, there can be a collective or historical relativism. For example, female circumcision is collectively and historically favoured in certain parts of Africa but in my jurisidiction it's viewed as being terrible and it's a criminal offence to carry it out. So in place A it's accepted, in place B it's not accepted. If morality was built on absolutes then female circumcision would either be regarded as good and practised everywhere or regarded as bad and practised nowhere.

There are no absolutes in morality.

 

[mattskramer]

Your conclusion doesn't matter. Truth is true whether or not you believe it.

Relativism can't be true because it is dependent on an individual's viewpoint. Each individual has a different viewpoint. There could be many viewpoints of the same event. In fact, one of the viewpoints could be that the event did not even occur. If relativism were true then the world would be full of contradictions. Contractions can't both be true at the same time.

Thanks for answering my question. I guess that we simply agree to disagree. I don’t know what more can be said or learned in this discussion/debate. I’ll simply reply to comments that seem to imply things that I simply did not say.

You do not trust our Government under Bush but have no problem allowing the Government in the future to simply allow murder because someone may or may not have ask for it to occur.

I think that government serve a purpose in certain areas but is not needed in other areas. I did not give my opinion about whether “mercy killing” should be allowed when the patient is unconscious and does not leave a “living will”. I admit that Terri Schiavo was a tough case.

By the way, do you oppose “living wills”? I think that you must in order to be consistent with your absolute.

Pretending that Government control of medicine won't become an issue is beyond ignorant. We are headed down that path, which by the way, as I recall YOU Matt support. Money gets tight and suddenly a hell of lot of sickly elderly and retards on the Government dole are gonna become assisted suicides. you can Count on it.

I never pretended that government control of medicine wouldn’t be an issue. Look back at my comment. I said that the issue of government-controlled medicine is a different issue with different pros and cons. (It certainly seems like you like to imply that I said things when I did not say them. Catching you doing this is easy but annoying. Please read more carefully. As for the temptation and conflict of interest that government would have in killing people, we have Medicare and Medicaid. Yet, I don’t see many cases, if any, where government is pushing such recipients to die. I have seen cases in which private nursing homes appear to have killed elderly people (who did not ask to be killed) to make room for more. Such murders should be fully prosecuted. As long as those people who receive healthcare from the government are conscious or otherwise have living wills, I don’t see that government is going to push them for assisted suicide.

Do you support Medicare and Medicaid or do you think that such programs should be stopped?

Give the power to legally murder to the Government or people in society or both and your not going to like where that goes. But hey you probably won't be around when the Government starts cleaning up the old folks homes cause they just cost to much, clearing out the disabled facilities cause we just don't have the resources.

Just as I said with the issue of abortion, the issue of government-controlled medicine is a different issue with different pros and cons. It is being discussed and debated. The pros and cons are being weighed. Dangers and safeguards are being considered.

If you really were interested in this topic, I’d recommend that you rent the movie “Whose Life Is It Anyway?” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083326/

In closing for now:

Universal absolutes are a human invention. They do not exist outside of human imagination. Relativism exists. There are general rules and understandings that may change when special circumstances and events occur. Consider the past. Different things were understood to be absolutes. Then events, circumstances, and careful thinking changed and people basically changed their minds about these alleged absolutes. Even with relativism there is structure. I suppose that you could think of relativism as universals that might change given enough reasoning and the discovery of special cases.

Anyway, many people disagree with your notion of euthanasia. I think that many people would support the “pulling of the plug” for that old man. For people like you to say that it is a universal absolute that we not do so does not make it an absolute. It merely is your opinion to which people disagree. Therefore, there is no proof that universal absolutes exist outside of human imagination.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There are no absolutes in morality.

Once again you have contradicted yourself.

Not just an individual's viewpoint, there can be a collective or historical relativism. For example, female circumcision is collectively and historically favoured in certain parts of Africa but in my jurisidiction it's viewed as being terrible and it's a criminal offence to carry it out. So in place A it's accepted, in place B it's not accepted. If morality was built on absolutes then female circumcision would either be regarded as good and practised everywhere or regarded as bad and practised nowhere.

Truth is not invented by a culture or even by religious men. Truth is Truth. God is Truth. God is the ultimate standard. Truth is revealed or discovered. Christians believe God's Truth is revealed and discovered in the Bible. God is the Way, God is the Light.

Without God you must ultimately believe that chance determines reality and everything is a chance occurrence so there is no standard and so "anything goes". Your life has no real value because you are nothing more than a chance occurrence. And because nothing really matters, you do not have to be accountable for your actions. (this leads to a lot of negativity in society)

And because man is finite, he cannot claim or provide proof that there is "no God/no Absolute". He would have to have absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that.

 

[Shogun]

hehehehe..


good grief.

 

[mattskramer]

When someone gives a statement about an ethic, he is giving his opinion. That applies to you too. The difference is that you will not admit it.

Truth is not invented by a culture or even by religious men. Truth is Truth. God is Truth. God is the ultimate standard. Truth is revealed or discovered. Christians believe God's Truth is revealed and discovered in the Bible. God is the Way, God is the Light.

I have two words for you. Prove it. By the way, I can show you contradictions within the Bible. I can show situations (think situational ethics) where two Biblical admonitions may run into conflict with each other - (where one would have to actually disobey one or the other Biblical instruction or advice.) I can show you passages having instructions and advice what would seem to be absurd or insignificant.

Without God you must ultimately believe that chance determines reality and everything is a chance occurrence so there is no standard and so "anything goes". Your life has no real value because you are nothing more than a chance occurrence. And because nothing really matters, you do not have to be accountable for your actions. (this leads to a lot of negativity in society)

Tell that to atheists. Life has meaning to people, even to people who believe that there is no God. Things and people are important to them. They want to be well remembered and thought of. They still try to live up to standards for several reasons. Some instructions in the Bible actually seem to be good for you. They also understand that standards are needed for a civilized and progressive society and nation (with or without belief in God).

Several people wrote books. Other people put them together and called it a Bible. Whether parts of it are myth or truth, it has some advice and some of that advice seems to be good.

And because man is finite, he cannot claim or provide proof that there is "no God/no Absolute". He would have to have absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that.

There have been books that try to argue that God exists. There have been books to counter the alleged proofs that God exists. I doubt that there will ever be “absolute” proof one way or the other. I doubt that there will even be any overwhelming consensus of opinion by experts that God exists or does not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have two words for you. Prove it. By the way, I can show you contradictions within the Bible. I can show situations (think situational ethics) where two Biblical admonitions may run into conflict with each other - (where one would have to actually disobey one or the other Biblical instruction or advice.) I can show you passages having instructions and advice what would seem to be absurd or insignificant.

When dealing with God, contradictions don't mean anything.

 

[Shogun]

MY god or YOUR god?


just checking?

 

[midcan5]

Good debate.

I'm not sure I can express this clearly but I want to propose we do not have the right to injure another and therefore that duty is not relative. The counter argument that I can injure another either accidentally or through some cultural dimension does not in my opinion counter that position.

For instance, Matt's three people who could save millions of Cancer victims will not be sacrificed. Some may want to, but that doesn't mean we will allow it. Diuretic agrees female circumcision is wrong. If we agree something is wrong, realizing some people do wrong doesn't make it relative.

Probably there are many thing that are relative, but I propose that harming another is not relative.

 

[mattskramer]

Good debate.

I'm not sure I can express this clearly but I want to propose we do not have the right to injure another and therefore that duty is not relative. The counter argument that I can injure another either accidentally or through some cultural dimension does not in my opinion counter that position.

For instance, Matt's three people who could save millions of Cancer victims will not be sacrificed. Some may want to, but that doesn't mean we will allow it. Diuretic agrees female circumcision is wrong. If we agree something is wrong, realizing some people do wrong doesn't make it relative.

Probably there are many thing that are relative, but I propose that harming another is not relative.

Question one: Why not let someone sacrifice himself for millions if he wants to do so?

Question two: Is it always wrong to harm another? What if it is for his own good? What if you don’t know what is best for him? A scenario to think about with respect to question two:

Imagine a young boy wandering down a railroad track oblivious to the danger. He might be on drugs or mildly depressed. I fast train is approaching him. I run to him and knock him out of the way of the oncoming train. We tumble down off of the tracks in the nick of time. He injures his ankle in the process. He comes out of his seemingly drug induced state, realizes what happened, and thanks me. Did I do wrong?

Think about an older sick and weak man who positions himself on the railroad tracks. You manage to get him out of the way of the train but injure him in the process. He is very angry with you and hates you for what you did. He is tired of living and though of suicide by train as the most sure way to finish his life. He returns to the track a few days later and successfully commits suicide. Should I have left him alone? How can I be my brother’s keeper when I might not always know what is best for my brother or what he truly wants?

I’m sorry but I do not believe in universal absolutes. There are so many variable and situations to consider. I’d rather think and reason for myself then to blindly follow an old book or come up with a list of absolutes to trust.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again you have contradicted yourself.

There is no contradiction. Don't you understand that a simple statement is just that, a statement, a claim. There's nothing absolutist about it. If you think that then find a dictionary and look up the word "absolutism". Better yet, look it up in a dictionary of philosophy.

Truth is not invented by a culture or even by religious men. Truth is Truth. God is Truth. God is the ultimate standard. Truth is revealed or discovered. Christians believe God's Truth is revealed and discovered in the Bible. God is the Way, God is the Light.

Without God you must ultimately believe that chance determines reality and everything is a chance occurrence so there is no standard and so "anything goes". Your life has no real value because you are nothing more than a chance occurrence. And because nothing really matters, you do not have to be accountable for your actions. (this leads to a lot of negativity in society)

And because man is finite, he cannot claim or provide proof that there is "no God/no Absolute". He would have to have absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

"God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

Let me make another claim. Since morality is a human invention it can't be absolute. The only absolutes are those in nature, in the universe, in physics.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let me make another claim. Since morality is a human invention it can't be absolute. The only absolutes are those in nature, in the universe, in physics.

Now you're really destroying your argument. You're admitting that absolutes actually exist. That the world is not just a random set of chances and accidents.

If absolutes can exist in the natural world, why can't a natural morality exist as an absolute as well?

One proof of this is that man has a conscience. It's as if some higher power imbedded man with a moral code that makes him aware of the difference between good and evil. Instinctively we know some things are wrong -- such as stealing, killing the innocent, sexually abusing little children, etc.

Where did those morals come from? The only answer is that an absolute Truth exists. Some might call it the Divine nature of Man.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When someone gives a statement about an ethic, he is giving his opinion. That applies to you too. The difference is that you will not admit it.

I have two words for you. Prove it. By the way, I can show you contradictions within the Bible. I can show situations (think situational ethics) where two Biblical admonitions may run into conflict with each other - (where one would have to actually disobey one or the other Biblical instruction or advice.) I can show you passages having instructions and advice what would seem to be absurd or insignificant.

Tell that to atheists. Life has meaning to people, even to people who believe that there is no God. Things and people are important to them. They want to be well remembered and thought of. They still try to live up to standards for several reasons. Some instructions in the Bible actually seem to be good for you. They also understand that standards are needed for a civilized and progressive society and nation (with or without belief in God).

Several people wrote books. Other people put them together and called it a Bible. Whether parts of it are myth or truth, it has some advice and some of that advice seems to be good.

There have been books that try to argue that God exists. There have been books to counter the alleged proofs that God exists. I doubt that there will ever be “absolute” proof one way or the other. I doubt that there will even be any overwhelming consensus of opinion by experts that God exists or does not exist.

The Bible says in Romans 1:18-20 that

"What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

 

[Diuretic]

Now you're really destroying your argument. You're admitting that absolutes actually exist. That the world is not just a random set of chances and accidents.

I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative.

If absolutes can exist in the natural world, why can't a natural morality exist as an absolute as well?

Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".

One proof of this is that man has a conscience. It's as if some higher power imbedded man with a moral code that makes him aware of the difference between good and evil. Instinctively we know some things are wrong -- such as stealing, killing the innocent, sexually abusing little children, etc.

Where did those morals come from? The only answer is that an absolute Truth exists. Some might call it the Divine nature of Man.

Conscience is a result of good socialisation and proper brain function. Sociopaths exist in society, most of them are functional and not criminal but they simply have no conscience for some reason or the other. If a higher power had given us conscience then why would that higher power have failed to give a conscience to a significant minority of the population?

Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing.

Killing the innocent is a qualification. Killing is the physical action of taking the life of another sentient being. As such it's an example of relative morals. Killing an enemy in war is morally acceptable, killing an innocent is not morally acceptable. To know the moral nature of "killing" we have to identify the subject being killed and the context in which the action of killing is taking place.

Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute.