Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
• a particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp. one held by a specified person or society
• the extent to which an action is right or wrong (Dictionary)
We have trouble debating morality because it has a different meaning for believers and non-believers. So since we view morality in a different context we can never have a logical argument about it. One word can have different meanings, to give an example The expression “this is a wild horse” means different things in different contexts. In one context it can mean “an untamed horse” in another “ a trained horse gone out of control”. With “morality” we have a similar problem. For the unbeliever the dictionary meaning, as stated above, is what they mean in a discussion. For the believer however, morality is firmly tied to God, God created morality thus there is no morality without God, so they are always correct in their mind when they state: ”atheist have no morality” and are as firm in that conclusion as they are in belief in God.
Morality thus defined, is always “good” there cannot be a bad morality so therefor “bad morality’ in their terms is “no morality” unarguably. This problem has been attempted to be solved by using “subjective“ or “objective” morality, which also creates a problem. Many papers have been written arguing about the meaning of those as well.
Moral objectivism may refer to:
Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true. or
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
Believers will not accept that since again they are firmly convinced that morality is subject to God’s word. How do we get out of this conundrum? By simply not using the “loaded” word “morality”. We can call a “system of values and principles of conduct held by society” either “Laws” or “Rules”. Now there are good laws or rules and bad ones, so let us discuss whether “Benificial Laws” or “Beneficial Rules” can possibly written by man or do they have to be written by God. To me the answer is obvious.
• a particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp. one held by a specified person or society
• the extent to which an action is right or wrong (Dictionary)
We have trouble debating morality because it has a different meaning for believers and non-believers. So since we view morality in a different context we can never have a logical argument about it. One word can have different meanings, to give an example The expression “this is a wild horse” means different things in different contexts. In one context it can mean “an untamed horse” in another “ a trained horse gone out of control”. With “morality” we have a similar problem. For the unbeliever the dictionary meaning, as stated above, is what they mean in a discussion. For the believer however, morality is firmly tied to God, God created morality thus there is no morality without God, so they are always correct in their mind when they state: ”atheist have no morality” and are as firm in that conclusion as they are in belief in God.
Morality thus defined, is always “good” there cannot be a bad morality so therefor “bad morality’ in their terms is “no morality” unarguably. This problem has been attempted to be solved by using “subjective“ or “objective” morality, which also creates a problem. Many papers have been written arguing about the meaning of those as well.
Moral objectivism may refer to:
Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true. or
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
Believers will not accept that since again they are firmly convinced that morality is subject to God’s word. How do we get out of this conundrum? By simply not using the “loaded” word “morality”. We can call a “system of values and principles of conduct held by society” either “Laws” or “Rules”. Now there are good laws or rules and bad ones, so let us discuss whether “Benificial Laws” or “Beneficial Rules” can possibly written by man or do they have to be written by God. To me the answer is obvious.
RSS Feed