Oh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.
Good and Evil
-
- Posts: 8710
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Good and Evil
What's not "correct" about it? Or what aspect(s) of it do you think doesn't correspond to reality any more or less than "objectivity"? Morality tends to differ in subtle ways from person to person and from society to society. It's a fact of life. The challenge is finding common ground. That's a challenge and has always been a challenge with or without a belief in God. Belief in God doesn't change anything, except if the believer thinks God somehow favors him for some trivial, irrelevant reason over others.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:19 amOh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
I use it as a hypothetical. Notice the word "if." I do not believe subjectivism is correct. I'm only saying what it would mean "if" subjectivism were correct -- but it is not.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:35 amWhat's not "correct" about it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:19 amOh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.
And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."
-
- Posts: 8710
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Good and Evil
Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:45 am And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:44 amYes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:45 am And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."
That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.
Re: Good and Evil
Why do you care what choice he makes?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:52 pmProblem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:44 amYes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:45 am And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."
That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
Because not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 4:13 pmWhy do you care what choice he makes?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:52 pmProblem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:44 am
Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.
That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.
Re: Good and Evil
So it's not just about your duty to God; you also have personal feelings about Gary's fate? You need to do something about that before you descend into a downward spiral of irrationality.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:39 pmBecause not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 4:13 pmWhy do you care what choice he makes?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:52 pm
Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.
That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.
Re: Good and Evil
Whereas, urging people to believe nonsense is literally what you do because you don't know any better.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:39 pmBecause not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
But duty to God is all there is, isn't it? Our personal feelings are not to be trusted, didn't you tell us?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well. To know God is to love God. There really is no other way to know Him. Anybody who has a mere burden of duty toward God simply does not know God as he should.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:26 pmBut duty to God is all there is, isn't it?
Our personal feelings do not define the moral duties we have. You also can't make somebody obligated to experience a feeling. That makes feelings very different from morality.Our personal feelings are not to be trusted, didn't you tell us?
We don't know God as a product of our feelings; we have appropriate feelings to God because we know Him, relate to Him and love Him. Doing the right thing then becomes a product of that. And appropriate emotions do follow: but they do not lead.
Re: Good and Evil
Well I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:35 pmFar from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.
I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.To know God is to love God.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23240
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Good and Evil
Subjectivism would imply that any such sense of duty is merely a feeling, not a fact. So far from having a duty, all you'd have is an impression that you could overcome in the next ten seconds, should your mood, your will or even your digestion shift. But to have a duty is to do the right thing regardless of, and even contrary to, what one feels.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:03 pmWell I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:35 pmFar from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.
The soldier who is terrified does his duty if he does not capitulate to his feelings and run from his post. The faithful husband does his duty if he does not capitulate to lust for other women on a business trip. The fireman does his duty when, fighting his survival instinct, he rushes headlong into a blaze to rescue a trapped child. In all such cases, feelings and duty are at opposite interests. They are clearly very often not conducive to the same imperatives, therefore.
That's a pretty good argument for the necessity of the Incarnation, of course: to provide a tangible, direct experience of God, but one not overwhelming to the will. For God wishes to be known by free choice, not by compulsion. The direct experience of the eternal God would be an overwhelmingly compelling experience, of course.I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.To know God is to love God.
So He has appointed this time in which we find that if we want, we can resist the knowledge of Him, and even choose not to relate to Him at all; but He's done so with the view to giving us that freedom, individuality, volition, will, and identity that make us genuinely capable of voluntary friendship, if we will choose it. And He has done more than enough to give us reason to venture some faith, if only faith the size of the Biblical mustard seed, or as weak as a smouldering flax. He does not ask much of us: but to believe He exists, and that He will reward those who seek Him is the sine qua non of relationship with God.
Re: Good and Evil
But it is a fact that I have the feelings.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:28 pmSubjectivism would imply that any such sense of duty is merely a feeling, not a fact.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:03 pmWell I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:35 pm Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.
This might make theoretical sense to you, but I'm sure you know that, in practice, it is not the case. It is certainly not the case in my case.So far from having a duty, all you'd have is an impression that you could overcome in the next ten seconds, should your mood, your will or even your digestion shift.
Exactly, people -at least some- will follow their sense of duty at great personal expense. That impulse is already in us; we don't need God to turn it into a command before we act.The soldier who is terrified does his duty if he does not capitulate to his feelings and run from his post. The faithful husband does his duty if he does not capitulate to lust for other women on a business trip. The fireman does his duty when, fighting his survival instinct, he rushes headlong into a blaze to rescue a trapped child. In all such cases, feelings and duty are at opposite interests. They are clearly very often not conducive to the same imperatives, therefore.
That just sounds like a very human attempt to get people to believe something they would otherwise have absolutely no reason to believe.IC wrote:That's a pretty good argument for the necessity of the Incarnation, of course: to provide a tangible, direct experience of God, but one not overwhelming to the will. For God wishes to be known by free choice, not by compulsion. The direct experience of the eternal God would be an overwhelmingly compelling experience, of course.Harbal wrote:I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.
It seems more like he is giving us the opportunity to resist the attraction of our common sense.So He has appointed this time in which we find that if we want, we can resist the knowledge of Him,
Our survival depends on our faculty of rationality, and we completely rely on it to navigate our way through life, so I have to strongly disagree that asking us to abandon it is not asking much.He does not ask much of us: but to believe He exists,