Is Creating Life a Moral Carte Blanche?

[Left Coast]

Wrong.

How? This is like saying the word "hungry" applies to a desk. If God is beyond morality, attributing moral terms to them is definitionally incoherent and meaningless.

Okay your highness.

I know, you don't like it when I don't let you turn the tables.

Not until you define your terms.

I already explained why the particular system of morality you pick is irrelevant. When you address that, then we can progress in the conversation.

 

[Left Coast]

What psychological disposition, desires, stances does God have that you're aware of?

I'm not aware of God having any such thing, because I'm not aware of any God. I'm not a theist.

Are you saying you don't think they have any of those things? If so, how can something that has no psychological dispositions, desires, or stances be coherently described as morally good?

 

[Left Coast]

No. I didnt say that.

Also - okay, so will you say it now? Would God ever murder someone for no reason? If so, would it be moral? If not, why not?

 

[firedragon]

I'm not aware of God having any such thing,

Then how could you make assumption about what he ought to do?

How? This is like saying the word "hungry" applies to a desk. If God is beyond morality, attributing moral terms to them is definitionally incoherent and meaningless.

You have not understood it.

I know, you don't like it when I don't let you turn the tables.

Okay your highness.

I already explained why the particular system of morality you pick is irrelevant. When you address that, then we can progress in the conversation.

No. You spoke of "good". So what is good? And what is perfect?

 

[Left Coast]

Then how could you make assumption about what he ought to do?

I didn't.

You have not understood it.

What have I not understood? You keep saying this but never coherently explain what it is I'm missing.

Okay your highness.

There's no need to behave childishly.

No. You spoke of "good". So what is good? And what is perfect?

I spoke of theists saying their God is good. You tell me: how is God good, if they transcend morality?

 

[firedragon]

What have I not understood? You keep saying this but never coherently explain what it is I'm missing.

I did. Maybe #68

There's no need to behave childishly.

Yes your highness.

I spoke of theists saying their God is good. You tell me: how is God good, if they transcend morality?

So what do you mean by "good"? Well, I guess you won't answer that.

 

[Left Coast]

I did. Maybe #68

Right, and I replied to that by asking: does any definition of morality apply to them, then? And if not, then definitionally moral categories like goodness don't apply to them.

So what do you mean by "good"? Well, I guess you won't answer that.

If you go back and read starting at the OP, I said that morality indicates what one ought or ought not do, at minimum. So if it's helpful, one can say the good is what one ought do. But you already said oughts don't apply to God. So goodness doesn't apply to God. To which you'll reply "YOUR definition of goodness doesn't apply." So let's cut to the chase and just get to what YOUR definition is, if you claim that God is good. If you don't claim that God is good or moral, then this entire conversation has been irrelevant.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Non-believers often object to things allegedly done by gods, particularly the Abrahamic God as that's the dominant view of God these days. Theists then reply that God may do whatever they please in regard to their creation because they created it.

Does that reasoning hold water? If I create a life, is it morally acceptable for me to do whatever I please with that life? Kill it, torture it, starve it, punish it for no good reason?

In my view it isn't acceptable, if morality is to be a meaningful concept. A moral creator would recognize that there are things one cannot do to the life they've created if one wants to be considered moral.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.

In my view it isn't acceptable, if morality is to be a meaningful concept

I think that's it exactly... by claiming that anything god does is moral, regardless of how morally repugnant human beings might consider it to be you've completely redefined the concept of morality. I'm often told that I can't judge god in terms of human morality. Yet morality is a human concept based upon what's considered to be proper or improper conduct when interacting with other human beings. If what god does isn't held to that same standard then what god does clearly isn't based upon morality, as commonly defined.

If you can't judge god by human moral standards then theists need to stop claiming that god defines what's moral, because as humans, human moral standards are all we have.

 

[blü 2]

Non-believers often object to things allegedly done by gods, particularly the Abrahamic God as that's the dominant view of God these days. Theists then reply that God may do whatever they please in regard to their creation because they created it.

Does that reasoning hold water? If I create a life, is it morally acceptable for me to do whatever I please with that life? Kill it, torture it, starve it, punish it for no good reason?

In my view it isn't acceptable, if morality is to be a meaningful concept. A moral creator would recognize that there are things one cannot do to the life they've created if one wants to be considered moral.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.

It rather depends on whether God is the same species as humans, doesn't it?

We treat other species as pleases us, eat countless chickens, cattle, fish, kill lab rats (and still use our cousin apes), put down dogs, cats and horses when it suits our convenience, and some of us even go hunting for the joy of killing things.

Or perhaps if you were God you'd think no more of wiping out humans than a computer programmer would think about wiping a program.

That's to say, if God is not the same species as humans (and the allegation that we're made "in his image" is too vague to pin a meaning on) then if [he] killed whatever [he] wanted, [he] wouldn't be doing anything different to what we do every day.

 

[Left Coast]

We treat other species as pleases us, eat countless chickens, cattle, fish, kill lab rats (and still use our cousin apes), put down dogs, cats and horses when it suits our convenience, and some of us even go hunting for the joy of killing things.

I mean, I don't, but yes, point taken.

 

[firedragon]

Right, and I replied to that by asking: does any definition of morality apply to them, then? And if not, then definitionally moral categories like goodness don't apply to them.

Thats because you have not tried to understand.

But lets see.
1. What is your definition of morality?
2. What is your definition of goodness?

If you go back and read starting at the OP, I said that morality indicates what one ought or ought not do, at minimum. So if it's helpful, one can say the good is what one ought do. But you already said oughts don't apply to God. So goodness doesn't apply to God. To which you'll reply "YOUR definition of goodness doesn't apply." So let's cut to the chase and just get to what YOUR definition is, if you claim that God is good. If you don't claim that God is good or moral, then this entire conversation has been irrelevant.

Nope. With out knowing your epistemology a question you are trying hard to not understand considering everything "games" cannot be explained.

So "good" is defined by "oughts"? What you ought not do is "bad"? What you ought to do is "good"?

Is that correct?

 

[firedragon]

Right, and I replied to that by asking: does any definition of morality apply to them, then? And if not, then definitionally moral categories like goodness don't apply to them.



If you go back and read starting at the OP, I said that morality indicates what one ought or ought not do, at minimum. So if it's helpful, one can say the good is what one ought do. But you already said oughts don't apply to God. So goodness doesn't apply to God. To which you'll reply "YOUR definition of goodness doesn't apply." So let's cut to the chase and just get to what YOUR definition is, if you claim that God is good. If you don't claim that God is good or moral, then this entire conversation has been irrelevant.

Think about it.

Lets say there is the animal kingdom, and humans. Do you believe human morality transcends animals??

 

[Left Coast]

Think about it.

Lets say there is the animal kingdom, and humans. Do you believe human morality transcends animals??

I don't know what that question means. Also, humans are animals. You know this, yes?

I've thought about it. How about you just explain in what sense you think God is good or moral?

 

[Left Coast]

Thats because you have not tried to understand.

But lets see.
1. What is your definition of morality?
2. What is your definition of goodness?



Nope. With out knowing your epistemology a question you are trying hard to not understand considering everything "games" cannot be explained.

So "good" is defined by "oughts"? What you ought not do is "bad"? What you ought to do is "good"?

Is that correct?

You don't need to know my epistemology, as my worldview doesn't have anything to do with yours. I'm asking about your view as a theist.

Again, for now the third or more time, morality is concerned with what one ought or ought not do. So you can think about the good as what one ought do.

If you have a different definition, then let's hear it so we can figure out what you mean if you believe God is good or moral.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know what that question means. Also, humans are animals. You know this, yes?

I've thought about it. How about you just explain in what sense you think God is good or moral?

Humans are animals. Hmm. So that's your answer. Though you know what the question is. No problem.

Lets say Chickens. Do humans transcend chicken's morality?

You don't need to know my epistemology, as my worldview doesn't have anything to do with yours.

Your epistemology is not your worldview. Well, if you dont intend to engage its fine. Your prerogative. This is your thread after all.

 

[Left Coast]

Humans are animals. Hmm. So that's your answer. Though you know what the question is. No problem.

Lets say Chickens. Do humans transcend chicken's morality?

I don't know what that means.

Again, we're beating around the bush here. Do you think God is moral? If so, what does that mean? I've explained why I think the God you're describing is amoral. Now your turn.

Are there things God wouldn't or couldn't do because doing them would be immoral?

Or is anything they do moral by default, ie there is nothing they wouldn't or couldn't morally do?

Your epistemology is not your worldview. Well, if you dont intend to engage its fine. Your prerogative. This is your thread after all.

You know, I've been engaging quite a bit, probably more than I should. But I'll happily be proven wrong in your incredibly clear reply to this that explains what it means to you that your God is moral, if that is indeed your view.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know what that means.

It matters to simply understand what it means to say the English word "transcended".

 

[Left Coast]

It matters to simply understand what it means to say the English word "transcended".

In the context of chicken morality (if such a thing even exists), I genuinely don't.

It appears you're not actually interested in directly responding in a way that's relevant to the OP. Have a good day/evening.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Non-believers often object to things allegedly done by gods, particularly the Abrahamic God as that's the dominant view of God these days. Theists then reply that God may do whatever they please in regard to their creation because they created it.

Does that reasoning hold water? If I create a life, is it morally acceptable for me to do whatever I please with that life? Kill it, torture it, starve it, punish it for no good reason?

In my view it isn't acceptable, if morality is to be a meaningful concept. A moral creator would recognize that there are things one cannot do to the life they've created if one wants to be considered moral.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.

The different between you and God is that you are a human being God is God who understands why people suffer when people let their ego become to large.
And they stop following Gods rules.

 

[firedragon]

In the context of chicken morality (if such a thing even exists), I genuinely don't.

It appears you're not actually interested in directly responding in a way that's relevant to the OP. Have a good day/evening.

Can never respond to anything when one person doesnt even understand a simple English word. So this was an attempt to make you understand which of course you are directly defying.

Humans transcend animal morality or should I say "beast", or would you turn around and say "humans are beasts", so I will say "okay so lets take the example of animals" to which you would say "Humans are animals"?

You can never expect a "chicken" which example I took to try and avoid your remarks, to impose their morality on humans. That is because humans transcend a chickens morality. The concept of God is that he transcends humans and humans cannot impose human morality on God. Simply because God is transcended.

Yep. Have a great day.