How does one choose?

[Sleeppy]

The only way to be completely moral is either knowing all morality, for all situations.. Or knowing one moral thing and that being your only action, ever.

Of course, as a Christian, God is the source for our moral completion.

 

[Nakosis]

Indeed. If morality is subjective then murder is no more moral (objectively) than altruism

Well killing... Can't call it murder if society calls it moral. Like the death penalty. There seems to be plenty around who see this killing of another person as a moral position.

 

[9Westy9]

The only way to be completely moral is either knowing all morality, for all situations.. Or knowing one moral thing and that being your only action, ever.

Of course, as a Christian, God is the source for our moral completion.

Unless God is deceiving you and actually Satan is the epitome of morality

 

[Sleeppy]

Unless God is deceiving you and actually Satan is the epitome of morality

Then you would have to switch the names, and redefine morality.

 

[9Westy9]

Then you would have to switch the names, and redefine morality.

why???

 

[Sleeppy]

why???

Or, redefine the names and morality. So the meanings fit.

 

[9Westy9]

Or, redefine the names and morality. So the meanings fit.

Let's take this elsewhere. No need to derail this thread
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/126205-god-liar.html

 

[idav]

The only way to be completely moral is either knowing all morality, for all situations.. Or knowing one moral thing and that being your only action, ever.

Of course, as a Christian, God is the source for our moral completion.

The "knowing all morality" is simply knowing all possibilities. Knowing is all one needs to pick the optimal objective but depends on what your after. What is God really after?

 

[Sleeppy]

The "knowing all morality" is simply knowing all possibilities. Knowing is all one needs to pick the optimal objective but depends on what your after. What is God really after?

Exactly. You'd have to know everything in every instance.

If you believe in God, He's after numerous things. You can see that by what He does.

 

[froggerlover]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

I personally find this a little insulting because I do NOT believe in god, but i do think i have some very high morals. You DO NOT have to be religious to believe in morals.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, it really depends on what you want to create morals. There's not really a right or wrong unless an entire society can agree on 1 thing they want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If morality is subjective then the murderer and rapist etc are moral.

You're arguing for a false dichotomy.

I like the analogy that Matt Dillahunty uses in his lecture "The Superiority of Secular Morality" (which, BTW, is a good video to google if you're actually interested in an answer to the questions in your OP) of a chess game: while it might be impossible to say what the single "best" move is in any given situation (if there is only one "best" - it could be that there are multiple moves that are all maximally good), this doesn't mean that all moves are equally good; some are demonstrably bad.

 

[Me Myself]

The reason why you are wrong is here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2741984-post29.html

Feel free to not pretend you overlook

edit:

I am not by nature a moral person.

Maybe you don´ty know yourself very much. It´s actually very common.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I am not by nature a moral person.

There is no nature morals, therefore it's up to you to define yourself as moral or not

 

[Nakosis]

I like the analogy that Matt Dillahunty uses in his lecture "The Superiority of Secular Morality" (which, BTW, is a good video to google if you're actually interested in an answer to the questions in your OP) of a chess game: while it might be impossible to say what the single "best" move is in any given situation (if there is only one "best" - it could be that there are multiple moves that are all maximally good), this doesn't mean that all moves are equally good; some are demonstrably bad.

Not really a good analogy. If you watch a game between two masters they make horrible moves, according to common best thought out strategy.

The obvious goal is checkmate. For example Bobby Fisher would sometimes remove his queen from the board before the start of the game. A very psychological move. Good for him, bad idea for most other players.

Thing is you don't know exactly how you opponent is going to move. Sometimes you make a seemly bad move to encourage a move from your opponent that will lead to an advantage for you. Sometimes you want to lull your opponent into a false sense of security.

If on the other hand everyone made the maximally best move you'd end up in a draw. The goal wouldn't be achieved.

The problem with the analogy is it forgets about the human factor. So while I don't see the secular position as inferior I see no reason to see it as superior either.

 

[Muffled]

I personally find this a little insulting because I do NOT believe in god, but i do think i have some very high morals. You DO NOT have to be religious to believe in morals.

There was no insult intended. People make choices and sometimes those choices are based on morality. The question is what is the basis for making a moral choice?

However you are moral by your own stndards. That is totally subjective which gets us back to the murderers and rapists who think they are moral by their standards. Certainly there is no problem if you lived in a world alone where subjective standards wouldn't affect anyone else but that isn't the case. And why should your standard be better than my standard?

I agree. However, how do you develop those morals?

 

[Muffled]

Well, it really depends on what you want to create morals. There's not really a right or wrong unless an entire society can agree on 1 thing they want.

Consensus is rare which is one explanation for majority rule in a democracy.

However the majority of southerners in the US believed in slavery. It was certainly right in the eyes of the people but that doesn't mean that God approves despite the fact that they thought they could find justification for it in the Bible.

Indeed. I may well not want Obama creating morals for me. Then agian he probably wouldn't want me creating morals for him.

 

[rusra02]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

Even persons professing no belief in God cannot escape conscience, a God given sense of right and wrong. (Romans 2:14,15) Adam's conscience moved him to hide from God in shame. However, without direction from God, a person's conscience can mislead him to do heinous acts. Beside our conscience, we need knowledge from God to direct our life. (Jeremiah 10:23,24)

​

​

 

[Muffled]

You're arguing for a false dichotomy.

I like the analogy that Matt Dillahunty uses in his lecture "The Superiority of Secular Morality" (which, BTW, is a good video to google if you're actually interested in an answer to the questions in your OP) of a chess game: while it might be impossible to say what the single "best" move is in any given situation (if there is only one "best" - it could be that there are multiple moves that are all maximally good), this doesn't mean that all moves are equally good; some are demonstrably bad.

Often religious laws fit into that concept. The law says do not murder but then the understanding of what murder is can vary. That is why a living law is better than a written law.

This is where the analogy breaks down a bit. There is no good or bad move. There are moves that might lead to victory and moves that might lead to deafeat but either victory or deafeat could be good.

 

[waitasec]

The question is what is the basis for making a moral choice?

the ability to empathize...
which is a very common ability within our species.