Bob Argues With a Saudi About Whether it is Good to Execute Homosexuals

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

While Saudi Arabia is in the news, I have a question for our subjectivist friends. In the United States it is considered morally wrong to execute a person for being a homosexual. In Saudi Arabia it is considered morally right to execute a person for being a homosexual.

As I understand subjectivist reasoning, morality is subjective and culturally determined. If you were in Saudi Arabia I assume you would attempt to get them to change their mind about executing homosexuals. I am curious. How would you argue for that? I can imagine a subjectivist (let’s call him “Bob”) making a number of arguments, and a probable response from a Saudi:

Bob: Executing people because they are homosexual is morally reprehensible.

Saudi: That’s just your opinion Bob. In my opinion executing people because they are homosexual is morally correct and laudable. And you yourself tell me that your personal subjective view on the matter is no “better,” in any meaningful sense of that word, than mine. So why should I care what you think?

Bob: It is not just my opinion. The people of the United States believe it is immoral to execute a person for being homosexual. The Saudi people should be more like the American people.

Saudi: Why? The analysis does not change when you compare your group to mine. Your own principles as a subjectivist tell me that the American view on the matter is no better, in any meaningful sense of that word, than the Saudi view.

Bob: Don’t you believe in moral progress? Every progressive nation believes that executing homosexuals is wrong. Don’t you want to be progressive?

Saudi: “Progressive”? By what standard are you progressive? Again, it is merely your opinion whether you are progressive. Your own first principles say there is no objective standard by which progress toward “progressive” goals can be measured. And I disagree. We consider your coddling of homosexuals not to be progressive but decadent.

Bob: Do you not care that the Western world rejects your views on this matter.

Saudi: First, you are wrong. Some progressive Westerners – the ones that understand their own premises forbid them from judging us – say “who am I to judge the Saudis.” Second, no, I don’t care what you and your friends think Bob. What is more, you yourself cannot give me a reason why I should care about what you and your friends think. Besides, I will turn it back on you: Don’t you care that the whole Islamic world rejects your views on the matter?

What am I missing? The one argument that Bob can never logically make is that it is actually objectively wrong (as opposed to wrong in his humble opinion) to execute homosexuals.

Comments

asauber 141 First you have to accept a thing called Truth, or you can’t begin to answer this question. Right. The acceptance that Truth has a greater moral goodness as a value is a universal, objective moral norm. It is impossible to refute this or argue against it. To do so, one would have to deny the truth of their own inner thoughts and their own arguments. All humanity affirms the goodness of truth - the necessity of it. Universal - natural law. jdk
Both people in this scenario believe in Truth, and believe they know what the Truth is.
You're affirming an objective moral norm. It is not subjective. You cannot subjectively state that the truth has equivalency to falsehood. This is the basis of the intellectual virtues - of integrity.Silver Asiatic_{October 26, 2018
October
10
Oct
26
26
2018
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Eugen
There is a lot for layman to learn from this interesting discussion. It would be good to see a formal argument for subjective morality from our philosophically trained or inclined atheist friends. Or at least some argument against natural moral law….so far not much in either department.
I attempted something in #96Silver Asiatic_{October 26, 2018
October
10
Oct
26
26
2018
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Mat Spirit
How do you justify disobeying a direct order from God, an order given through Moses, no less? I’m not condeming you here, I think you’re doing the right thing, but I’d like to see how you justify it.
In several sections of the Old Testament, God commanded the execution of certain groups of people, presumably as a way of directing salvation history in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. In some cases, even children were part of the collateral damage. God is the author of life so it is his prerogative to provide continued existence to or withdraw it from whomever He chooses. It may well be that those who were killed were also saved and would have lost their souls if they had been allowed to live. There are many other reasons why God might choose such actions. For humans in this day and age, there is no such right to kill, except in self defense, because humans are not the author of life and, therefore, have no right to take it without a good reason. If God gave someone a direct order, that would change things a great deal, but that doesn't seem to happen in modern times or even in New Testament times. Indeed, while adulterers were also subject to execution in the Old Testament, Jesus responded quite differently in the New Testament on that occasion when the Jews were about to stone to death a woman caught in adultery. He literally shamed her accusers and saved her life in the process. Under the circumstances, I think it is safe to say that he would have done the same thing for the homosexual. He would have said, "go and sin no more." I think Christians should act the same way. We should not murder homosexuals, but we should warn them that their sin will send them to hell if they do not repent and mend their ways. That is what is means to be charitable. Tell the hard truths to those who need to hear it.StephenB_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Eugen, I don't think you'll ever see "... a formal argument for subjective morality from our philosophically trained or inclined atheist friends." because I've never heard of an athiest who espoused subjective morality. That's just an insult Barry and others throw at people who disagree with them. Then they say subjective morality is self refuting and athiests don’t understand what the words “true premise” mean or what a “sound arguments” consists of. Saves a lot of tiresome reasoning on their part.MatSpirit_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'm a little bit disappointed with your moral system. The Sermon on the Mount is basically Jesus' variations and fugue on the Golden Rule. (Along with some silly bits. The meek have not noticably inherited the earth, for instance, but then its only been 2000 years so there's still a chance.) This is interesting, because the Golden Rule is the basis of my morality too. It's totally secular, it's perceived directly by just about every one and according to Wikipedia, it's been known since at least Confucian times, 500 years before Jesus was born. "If the Saudi believes that it is morally permissible to murder homosexuals. then he does so on the grounds that some Supernatural law, – an interpretation of some passage in the Koran – gives him that right." I dont know much about the Koran, but if that Saudi can't find his copy, he can borrow a Bible and justify his murders with Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." to justify killing every homosexual he can catch. He might find solace in the New Testament, too. As Paul says in (Romans 1:26,27) "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." He doesnt quite call for killing them, but "due penalty for their error" sounds pretty ominous. "...his false perception of some Divine law is different from the Natural Moral Law, which can be apprehended by reason." His FALSE perception of some Divine law? What about Leviticus 20:13? That commandment comes directly from the Lord by way of Moses! I'd be real interested in seeing your reasoning here. " No one should ever submit his intellect and will to a false religion. On the other hand, if a religion happens to be true, then it should be believed and embraced." I totally agree, but I hope you'll show your reasoning here. How do you justify disobeying a direct order from God, an order given through Moses, no less? I'm not condeming you here, I think you're doing the right thing, but I'd like to see how you justify it.MatSpirit_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

I said earlier that the natural law view of morality doesn’t mean there aren’t disagreements about natural law. There have been, there are and there will be disagreements. However, it can’t be argued that the natural law view has not been foundational to western thinking about morality and human rights for the last 2500 years. Its roots go all the way back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. One of the major differences I see between Islamic thinking and western Christian thinking was that Christians accepted NML while Islam did not. Human rights in the west are based on a culturally broad based view of natural moral law that has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking and doctrine. The question is, why? Islam scholars, after all, were not disinterested in Greek thought which contain important threads of NML. Much of Greek knowledge about science, mathematics and medicine would have been lost if he hadn’t been preserved by Islamic scholars. Not only did they preserve this knowledge but they made important advance of their own, in optics, alchemy, mathematics and astronomy. For example, the Arabs were the ones who invented algebra and were the first to make accurate calculations of longitude and the solar year, among many other contributions. For some reason they weren't interested in Plato and Aristotle's thinking about morality and ethics. So even though Islam embraces an objective moral code it does not accept NML, which is the basis for the idea of universal human rights. Morally speaking, if humans do not have value and worth, that’s not a better moral code. However, you can only decide between moral codes if there is some kind of overarching standard. That’s something moral subjectivists don’t have because they reject it a priori.john_a_designer_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

There is a lot for layman to learn from this interesting discussion. It would be good to see a formal argument for subjective morality from our philosophically trained or inclined atheist friends. Or at least some argument against natural moral law....so far not much in either department.Eugen_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

john a designer:
If you fail to posit a self-evidently true premise your argument fails on logical grounds. Logical contradictions can’t be true. Moral subjectivism fails because it is based on a self-refuting, therefore, irrational claims.
JAD, you are right, of course. This is a point that subjectivists miss in the most spectacular manner. Without self-evident truths underlying the entire logical/moral enterprise, there can be no reasoning about moral truth or anything else. I suspect that subjectivists don't understand what the words "true premise" mean or what a "sound arguments" consists of.StephenB_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Moderator: Sorry, I got a warning about a double posting which would not allow me to edit #172, which I have condensed and re-posted as 173. Please delete the original 172john_a_designer_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

The purpose of my life is to help make a better world. However, you can’t make a better world if there is no moral truth or no real basis for universal human rights. Moral subjectivism is a morally and intellectually bankrupt way of thinking that is based on egocentric self-righteousness that cannot be defended rationally or logically. As I have pointed out earlier it’s self-refuting.
Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?
This is logic 101. If you fail to posit a self-evidently true premise your argument fails on logical grounds. Logical contradictions can’t be true. Moral subjectivism fails because it is based on a self-refuting, therefore, irrational claims. Actually, it’s a “morality” based on egocentric self-righteousness being used to justify immorality, intolerance and contempt for ones fellow man. Furthermore, if it’s subjective why do you feel compelled to try to convince anyone else that it’s true? (Again that is logically self-refuting.) Obviously what is true for you is not necessarily true for anyone else. Moral subjectivism is not based on reason but on rationalization. Your rationalization does not refute that there really is objective moral truth and, therefore, a solid basis for universal human rights. Irrational egocentric moral subjectivism, on the other hand, offers no way to improve the world.john_a_designer_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

A moral subjectivist believes there are NO OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES. Again that means there are no real interpersonal moral obligations, therefore, there is no basis for universal human rights. That is their perspective not mine. I would argue that they have rights even if they don’t believe that. They’re the one who are arguing that nobody really has any rights. Moral subjectivism is a very irrational self-refuting moral perspective. I have every right to criticize that kind of thinking, even if I doesn’t come across as being nice or “civil.” I am not very patient with people who show up online peddling nothing but nonsense. The purpose of my life is to help make a better world. However, you can’t make a better world if there is no moral truth or no real basis for universal human rights. Moral subjectivism is a morally and intellectually bankrupt way of thinking that is based on egocentric self-righteousness that cannot be defended rationally or logically. As I have pointed out early it’s self-refuting. Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal? This is logic 101. If you fail to posit a self-evidently true premise your argument fails on logical grounds. Logical contradictions can’t be true. Moral subjectivism fails because it is based on a self-refuting, therefore, irrational claims. Actually, it’s a “morality” based on egocentric self-righteousness being used to justify immorality, intolerance and contempt for ones fellow man. Furthermore, if it’s subjective why do you feel compelled to try to convince anyone else that it’s true? (Again that is logically self-refuting.) Obviously what is true for you is not necessarily true for anyone else. Moral subjectivism is not based on reason but on rationalization. Your rationalization does not refute that there really is objective moral truth and, therefore, a solid basis for universal human rights. Irrational egocentric moral subjectivism, on the other hand, offers no way to improve the world.john_a_designer_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Correction of the above paragraph, which was written to hastily. (Written primarily for Bob O'J) It should read as follows: If, for example, the Christian religion is consistent with the NML, which it is, and the Saudi’s religious formulation is not, then we know that the former world view is true to that extent and the latter is false to that extent, which means that Christianity passed the test of reason in that context and the Saudi’s religion did not.StephenB_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

There is a great deal of confusion above and the same answer should suffice for everyone. The natural moral law is perceived by everyone (except those who have been psychologically harmed or have harmed themselves through habitual vice). Among other things, this law forbids murder, including the murder of homosexuals. This same law has been made explicit and more complete in the Christian religion in the form of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, the latter formulation going deeper forbidding also the hate mentality that would lead to murder. So both laws are true, but each is arrived at in a different way. The natural moral law is apprehended by way of reason and the Biblical moral law it received by faith. If the Saudi believes that it is morally permissible to murder homosexuals. then he does so on the grounds that some Supernatural law, - an interpretation of some passage in the Koran - gives him that right. Thus, his false perception of some Divine law is different from the Natural Moral Law, which can be apprehended by reason. But the Divine law is and must be consistent with the natural moral law. Moral truth is moral truth. That is why the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are consistent with the Natural Moral Law. The Natural Moral Law, then, which is known, can be used as a partial test for ascertaining the truth of any given religion. If, for example, the Christian religion is consistent with the NML, which it is, and is inconsistent with the Saudi's religious formulation, which it also is, then we know that the former world view is true to that extent and the latter is false to that extent, which means that Christianity passed the test of reason in that context and the Saudi's religion did not. This test is important because it rescues those who are searching for the truth from the mindless claim that they should "just believe" in a certain religious world view without asking any critical questions about it. No one should ever submit his intellect and will to a false religion. On the other hand, if a religion happens to be true, then it should be believed and embraced.StephenB_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

If “religious claims are based on revelation that must be *believed*, not those truths that can be *understood* through the use of reason”, then the test of reason (“that that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason.”) doesn’t make sense, as these truths are not arrived at through reason. I’m perplexed.
StephenB is wrong. The Sermon on the Mount is absolute Truth and The Moral Law.Antonin_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

...nobody ever tells us what THE moral law actually is. Where can a man find this law? Are you talking about a book, like the Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon?
I stated it above. The truth comes from the teachings of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, most eloquently in the Sermon on the Mount. This is the Truth.Antonin_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 158 - thanks for the clarification, but I'm still not understanding it. If "religious claims are based on revelation that must be *believed*, not those truths that can be *understood* through the use of reason", then the test of reason (“that that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason.”) doesn't make sense, as these truths are not arrived at through reason. I'm perplexed.Bob O'H_{October 25, 2018
October
10
Oct
25
25
2018
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "No, it is THE moral law, not my moral law." Stephen, I think there's a lot of talking past each other going on here. You speak about THE moral law, which sounds like something we should all know about, but nobody ever tells us what THE moral law actually is. Where can a man find this law? Are you talking about a book, like the Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon? Or maybe church tradition? Teachings of the saints? A sermon? Surely you have something more than just your opinion? What would really help this discussion would be for someone like yourself to list the main principles of THE moral law and give us some information on where this moral law comes from and what justifies it. If they then gave us a worked example of how this law is applied to a real life problem, such as "Should we kill this homosexual or not?", we'd be ready for a productive discussion. So far, we've just been given conclusions various believers have derived from their version of THE moral law, like "Kill the homosexuals," if they're a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian or "Don't kill the homosexuals" if they're a liberal Christian or you or Barry, but no one has shown the principles or shown their work applying them. On the other hand, the athiests on this blog have also given us their conclusions without showing their work or giving us the slightest clue about what their principles are or how they were applied! Honestly guys, it's embarassing! Speaking as a fellow athiest, I assure you that you DO have a moral system (although you obviously don't know what it is),and it IS an objective morality (That is, "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.") If Stephen will start stating the principles of his morality and showing how they lead to "Don't kill the homosexuals," I'll do the same with objective morality and we'll all know more than we do now.MatSpirit_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

According to orthodox Sunni doctrine, Allah is neither rational, loving (at least to infidels), nor moral. He is pure will and power, to which we owe unquestioning & unthinking obedience. Indeed, the very word Muslim means "one who submits." The God of the Bible is different, to put it mildly. The only way to be certain of paradise under Islam is for us to die for Allah. By contrast, the only way to be certain of paradise under Christianity was for God to die for us.anthropic_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

And the Saudi would say the same.
No, he would not. The Islamist, insofar as he tries to justify the act of murder, does not acknowledge the natural moral law, which forbids it.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

No, it is THE moral law, not my moral law.
And the Saudi would say the same.Mimus_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Yes, you made it clear that’s your philosophy.
No, it is THE moral law, not my moral law. Indeed, you even appeal to that same objective moral law yourself every time you lament the murder of homosexuals, or for that matter, when you criticize Barry's allegedly bad behavior. You appeal to pure objective morality when your ox is being gored. Like jdk, you admit murder "is wrong" when you are pressed, but once the heat is off, you revert back to your subjectivism, hoping that no one will notice the contrast- as if you really believed it, which of course, you don't. Then, like the Saudi, you make it up as you go along, Just as Mohammed made it up as he went along. That is the irony. The religion that you criticize operates by the same principle that you do, i.e., morality is whatever I want it to be - until the next time my ox is gored.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

That isn’t true. I made it perfectly clear that the Saudi’s position violates the natural moral law, which forbids murder.
Yes, you made it clear that's your philosophy. In this case the Saudi has another one. For him, the prophets teaching are the word of god and so a direct command from the source of objective moral truth. You prefer natural moral law, he prefers the prophet's teaching. Now what?Mimus_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

What I believe is neither hear nor there.
Yes it is. If you cannot answer a simple question, then you are not communicating in good faith. Go back and try again.
Barry’s bluster and general dick-ish-ness in this thread are all based on the idea that subjective morality provides no way to argue against murdering gay people.
I love the way subjectivists like yourself refute their own philosophy every time the criticize Barry's "wrong" behavior. In any case, Barry is exactly right. The subjectivist pacifist has no rational grounds for criticizing the subjectivist who chooses to murder. Both are following the subjectivist standard: "My morality is justified on the grounds that it is my morality." You are the one that cannot defend your position because you cannot answer that point. On what rational grounds do you criticize Barry's behavior?
In his own words, there is only “personal preference” for not murdering people for their sexual orientation.
Barry is right. Without objective moral standards, personal preferences are all that remain.
Barry has now disappeared from the thread. You are the only person left arguring for moral objectivism, but the only argument you could offer to the saudi amounts to your “personal preference” for one philosophy over another.
That isn't true. I made it perfectly clear that the Saudi's position violates the natural moral law, which forbids murder. Indeed, the Saudi's morality, insofar as it ignores the inherent dignity of the human person, is really based on subjective preferences, not objective morality.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Bob O"H asking about two of my comments:
StephenB @ 147 – Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be believed, not which are not truths arrived at through reason. StephenB also @ 147 – My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason. These comments look really contradictory. How do you reconcile them?
The first statement was a typo. I noticed and corrected it @148, which reads” Correction of a typo: I would reject (Islamist claims) on the grounds that they violate reason and the natural moral law. Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be *believed*, not those truths that can be *understood* through the use of reason. This is consistent with my statement “that that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason.”StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H citing my comments: StephenB @ 147 – Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be believed, not which are not truths arrived at through reason. StephenB also @ 147 – My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason. These comments look really contradictory. How do you reconcile them? The first statement was a typo. I noticed and corrected it @148, which reads" Correction of a typo: I would reject (Islamist claims) on the grounds that they violate reason and the natural moral law. Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be *believed*, not those truths that can be *understood* through the use of reason. This is consistent with my statement "that that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason."StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

How do we know a moral subjectivist is being honest when he is the one who sets the standards of honesty? It’s one thing if he sets a standard for himself. It’s quite another when he tries to impose his personal standards on everyone else. In other words, if he makes the claim he is being honest in an interpersonal way he can only do so by using a standard beside his own personal standard but that undermines his moral subjectivist claims. This is why I try to avoid getting involved in discussion with moral subjectivists. It would be a total waste of time. By the way, we could not have a functioning society without an interpersonal standard of truth and honesty. The courts, criminal justice, government, business and commerce etc. all depend on it.john_a_designer_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Do you agree that a moral view should be taken on faith alone or do you agree that such a world view is inferior to one that is grounded in reason? If the former is inferior to the latter, then do you also agree that it is not morally equivalent to it?
What I believe is neither hear nor there. Barry's bluster and general dick-ish-ness in this thread are all based on the idea that subjective morality provides no way to argue against murdering gay people. In his own words, there is only "personal preference" for not murdering people for their sexual orientation. Barry has now disappeared from the thread. You are the only person left arguring for moral objectivism, but the only argument you could offer to the saudi amounts to your "personal preference" for one philosophy over another. Perhaps you can make an argument that you think makes your philosophy better than another. But then so can a moral sujectivist. So we are back to choosing a moral system that fits your personal preference. All of Barry's bluster adds up to nothing.Mimus_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

jdk:
I am not knowledgeable about how an Islamist would justify their beliefs, and I certainly don’t intend to defend Islam on this issue.
You are missing the point. The Islamist cannot justify his belief at all because his world view commands submission even before any type of investigation has been made. Thus, it is inferior to any world view that submits to the test of reason, passes it, and then, and only then, asks for (not demands) acceptance.
The key point for me is that Stephen thinks that his use of reason and access to what he considers natural law is right, but that Islam, even if, as is likely, it adds arguments about reason to its invoking of the word of holy works, is false.
It is rather odd that you begin by saying that you know nothing of Islam and follow by telling us what the Islamist would likely do.
So my conclusion is the same as before: there is no objective way to judge between competing claims of access to what are believed to be objective moral standards. Everyone makes choices about their preferred beliefs, as Steven has done. His are well thought out and solidly in the tradition of Western philosophy and theology, but ultimately they are a subjective chosen preference.
Obviously, that is not true since you renounce the very nature of reasoned arguments, which depend on objective referents for legitimacy. Subjectivism proceeds from one preference to another without employing logic's objective standards. Indeed, all logical and moral truths that are apprehended begin with self-evident truths. You deny the human capacity to apprehend those self evident truths and even claim that no such thing as objective truth exists. ***If, after all, objective metaphysical truth exists, it follows that objective moral truth must also exist.*** To deny the latter is to deny the former. So while it is true for you that personal preferences rule your life, it is not true for me. I would prefer a religion that doesn't require suffering, but I don't follow that preference because I value truth more. I would prefer a religion that doesn't prompt secularists to persecute me, but I value truth more than popularity. On the other hand, you have chosen a subjective amoral standard that conveniently conforms to your personal behavior standards and patters, which renders you immune from any moral challenge that would allow you to change for the better or grow morally. It is impossible for a subjectivist to grow morally because he recognizes no objective moral target that is worth aiming for.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 147 -
Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be believed, not which are not truths arrived at through reason.
StephenB also @ 147 -
My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason.
These comments look really contradictory. How do you reconcile them?Bob O'H_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

SB: My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason. Islamists don’t feel that way. Mimus: So you have nothing to offer other than a personal preference for one philosophy over another? Bad logic. What you say doesn't follow from what I said. Try again. Respond to the substance of my statement. Do you agree that a moral view should be taken on faith alone or do you agree that such a world view is inferior to one that is grounded in reason? If the former is inferior to the latter, then do you also agree that it is not morally equivalent to it?StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply