To my missguided baby killing friends - an answer

Not at all. I argue that it is utterly pointless claiming this as there is no way in which the "correct" position can be determined.
Just because you're unwilling to go there doesn't mean that there's no way to determine it. You're unwilling to concede that there is a God. And if there were you're unwilling to concede that he created the universe. And further if we could get you to concede that he created the universe you would deny that he could communicate with human beings in intelligible languages (which would be the greatest of all ironies). The fact is there is a God, and he's done all of that, and what he has written is communicated through the Bible. So just because you're unwilling to go there doesn't mean there isn't a way to settle this. You're like the student who starts out of math problem wrong and refuses to be put right by the teacher. You're never going to get to the correct answer the route you're going.
Shrug. So what?
The "what" is that you've selected an example that refutes rather than establishes your point.
It may be universally agreed that Shakespeare is a better poet than McGonagall, but that doesn't make the judgement of what makes a good poet objective.
Well, I know more about music than I know about poetry, so I don't know that the two are the same in this respect, or that there isn't an objective way to determine who's the better poet. If Rudyard Kipling and Robert Frost weighed in on the subject, I suppose I'd have to seriously take whatever they said under advisement.
In some circumstances, such as when the four year old has just scraped a knee, ice cream is better.
Would it be true if he prefers broccoli?
This thread has already diverted down a rabbit hole on morality.
Well, I know some thing about the origin of this thread since I wrote the OP. It's fundamentally a moral question!
To take it to climate change is a step too far. I merely throw it up as a subject on which people do not agree and yet it has a factual, objective basis.
The complexity and sophistication of music is exactly that way. You can say with precision why complex music that is vastly ahead of its time, is that way, and every statement that you make will be completely objective. In fact if you were that analytical, you could literally reduce it to math.
It's the judgements that are on a continuum, not the facts. Facts are either true, or not true.
As a practical matter I have not observed anybody addressing this issue with a level of caution and detail sufficient to vindicate what are claimed as "Facts." I don't deny that there are underlying facts that are relevant to this discussion, but I haven't seen anybody making any statements that are modest enough, specific enough, and granular enough to actually qualify as facts. Everything that I see in this discussion is about 10 levels of abstraction above that, and those don't qualify as facts.
If you want to argue climate emergency, go to the appropriate forum.
I'm simply saying what is minimally necessary to respond to your specific examples. So far you're not doing very well in the example department.
Bollocks.
I'd love to give you credit for that sentiment, but I'm facing a complete void of evidence.
I am not dyslexic.
Nobody said you're dyslexic. I'm dyslexic. But I know perfectly well whether I've written God or dog.
There's no god.
Does it make you feel a little bit omnipotent when you say that? You didn't reason your way to that conclusion. You are camping out on the throne and acknowledging God would put an end to that.
You base this on the grounds that I disagree with you. How ironic.
It's not that we disagree. It's the nature of the thing that we disagree about. Once you label something "subjective" that is the last step you take toward a solution to the question at hand. Much like your approach to God. The only irony here is your total lack of self examination.
No, you can't have it both ways. There are plenty of people who agree that an objective morality probably exists who also agree that the Pro-life position on abortion is morally wrong.
Well I'm not sure that that is a good characterization of the fact. But it should come as little surprise that anybody who acknowledges that objective morality exists could equally acknowledge that they don't have a complete grasp of everything that that entails. So it would not be a shock if that extended to this particular application in one particular case or another. But I think with such a person we could come to a meeting of the minds in a relatively finite length of time. It's the intransigence of calling the topic "subjective" that puts an end to all progress.
That morality is subjective makes no difference to my view whatsoever.
Oh of course not! The fact that the question definitionally can't have a dispositive answer, doesn't change anything? What an absurd statement!
I believe passionately about certain moral positions. On abortion, I think that you are wrong, just as incidentally I think that you are wrong about Bach. I just dont think that you are objectively wrong. There's no absolute right or wrong,
You think I'm objectively wrong about whether the question is objective or subjective. I think you're objectively wrong because the question itself has an objectively identifiable answer. When you say I'm wrong you're saying something entirely different than when I'm saying you're wrong.
just as broccoli is not always better than ice cream.
When you say that "broccoli is not always better than ice cream" you have changed the question. That's a rhetorical trick. Do you doubt that I can restate the proposition with a level of specificity to remove your rhetorical trick? You're relying on the natural ambiguity in human language to slide past the logic.
Besides which, in practical terms, even if objective morality does exist, there's no way of determining what that objective moral position is, particularly on controversial subjects such as abortion.
Of course there is. Any God who can create this universe can communicate to his image bearing creatures in languages which they can comprehend. He's done precisely that and he's told us about himself most
Objective morality is a red herring thrown in by people losing the argument, so that they can claim, whatever the majority view of society is, they are objectively in the right. Piffle.
You don't like it when people point out that you're sitting on God's throne.
As you have absolutely no idea what I do in every day life, this attempt at mind reading is a fail.
I know what humans do and I'm pretty sure you're a human. And humans do things like quarrel over topics that have a direct bearing on common every day morality. When somebody says "I know I ate all the brownies, but last week you made a bunch and I didn't get any." That statement turns on the idea that there is an objective moral question at the center of the behavior. But somehow you get an exemption for some particular rationale on a moral principle that you both agree on to be objectively factual. Now, you engage in this kind of behavior, because you're a human, and that's what humans do. I don't have to be a mind reader. Now of course the topic may not be brownies, but if you tell me you don't engage in this kind of quarreling I'm going to disbelieve you.
 
Temujin, God is God, you seem to measure God on your experience as a human. You can say you dont believe in God but its ridiculous to say the God you dont believe in cant do what you consider He cant
 
That sums up most reasons for abortion.
That little life could be a real cause of concern and worry for someone by its appearance in nine months. Except that was true for all of us. All you have to do to confirm that is look at a picture of your parents in your baby pictures and compare that to a picture of them when you graduated high school.

So it is absolutely true that having upmost concern for someone else isn't without cost. But everybody's existence depends on it. Refusing to pay this debt when you're called upon to do so it's not far from sociopathic.
 
Your personal feelings and beliefs are not an appropriate basis for social policy that affects everyone. You are entitled to believe what you like, have your religious practices permitted and accommodated, display your religious symbols, have your religious titles recognised and your festivals respected. Other people with different personal feelings and beliefs have similar rights, whether it is the right to refuse blood transfusions or the right to change their pronouns. What you do not have the right to do is insist that others follow the dictates of your personal feelings and beliefs. You can endanger yourself by refusing a blood transfusion. You cannot justify a law preventing blood transfusions for everyone else. You can eschew abortion and IVF. You cannot force others to do the same.

That's what you are trying to do here. Your God has no place in this debate, other than in shaping your personal views on the subject. You believe for religious reasons that the soul enters the body at conception. Others believe that this happens with the first breath. Others don't believe in a soul at all.

Ovarian cancer in young women leaves a choice, treatment that will produce infertility or non-treatment that allows pregnancy at the cost of an early death. IVF allows a third choice, to harvest and store eggs which can then be fertilised in vitro after successful treatment. You and your personal feelings and beliefs have no right to take away that choice from someone who doesn't share them.

The medical need for abortion can arise at every stage of pregnancy. The medical profession, and most lay people are comfortable with killing the unborn child in order to save the life of the mother. Not an easy decision perhaps, but pretty clear cut. Is anybody comfortable with killing someone in order to harvest their organs to save another? Of course not. The reason for the difference in attitude is that the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the unborn child. The former is a person, the latter is not yet a person. The abortion debate is centred on just how much or how little the mother's life is worth more than the unborn, and hence how much jeopardy she should be in before abortion is justified.

This is nothing to do with whether the unborn is human or not. It's to do with at what point in its life its humanity is of equal worth to that of the human who bears it. Most abortion laws adopt a sliding scale which essentially measure the worth of the unborn's life, from virtually worthless at conception to virtually the same as the mother's at term. These ideas about worth are not based on science, or religion, though both may have formed the views of the decision makers. They are a social and medical judgement made by those charged with the authority to make them. Individuals like yourself may have differing views, but that doesn't give you the right to impose them on others. No-one can force you to have an abortion, or IVF, whatever the personal cost to yourself. The same should apply in the other direction.
Your rant displays your religion.
 
On the topic of Bach being better than the Beatles please review the following.

It's a matter of taste. People differ in their taste. More complicated, erudite, innovative, clever, etc. etc. does not mean better. People who don't like Bach exist, and whether one agrees with their musical taste or not, they are not wrong to dislike baroque chamber music anymore than someone is wrong to dislike coffee.

Still, this is of peripheral relevance and it's not a ditch I would wish to die in. That some matters are a subjective judgement is obvious, be they taste in ice cream or views on euthanasia. You claim that your moral views are objective. I dispute that. I don't dispute that they are based on objective factors. Inherited characteristics, upbringing, education and personal experience are all objectively real, whether or not they include religious belief of whatever flavour. The emergent property of morality and the associated conscience are also real. They are however subjective in that firstly they are unique to a particular individual and secondly that there is no externally imposed correct standard against which they can be measured.
 
It's a matter of taste. People differ in their taste. More complicated, erudite, innovative, clever, etc. etc. does not mean better. People who don't like Bach exist, and whether one agrees with their musical taste or not, they are not wrong to dislike baroque chamber music anymore than someone is wrong to dislike coffee.
no, the matter of musicianship is not a matter of taste. The point was about the better musician.
 
It's a matter of taste. People differ in their taste. More complicated, erudite, innovative, clever, etc. etc. does not mean better. People who don't like Bach exist, and whether one agrees with their musical taste or not, they are not wrong to dislike baroque chamber music anymore than someone is wrong to dislike coffee.

Still, this is of peripheral relevance and it's not a ditch I would wish to die in. That some matters are a subjective judgement is obvious, be they taste in ice cream or views on euthanasia. You claim that your moral views are objective. I dispute that. I don't dispute that they are based on objective factors. Inherited characteristics, upbringing, education and personal experience are all objectively real, whether or not they include religious belief of whatever flavour. The emergent property of morality and the associated conscience are also real. They are however subjective in that firstly they are unique to a particular individual and secondly that there is no externally imposed correct standard against which they can be measured.
 
It's a matter of taste. People differ in their taste. More complicated, erudite, innovative, clever, etc. etc. does not mean better. People who don't like Bach exist, and whether one agrees with their musical taste or not, they are not wrong to dislike baroque chamber music anymore than someone is wrong to dislike coffee.

Still, this is of peripheral relevance and it's not a ditch I would wish to die in. That some matters are a subjective judgement is obvious, be they taste in ice cream or views on euthanasia. You claim that your moral views are objective. I dispute that. I don't dispute that they are based on objective factors. Inherited characteristics, upbringing, education and personal experience are all objectively real, whether or not they include religious belief of whatever flavour. The emergent property of morality and the associated conscience are also real. They are however subjective in that firstly they are unique to a particular individual and secondly that there is no externally imposed correct standard against which they can be measured.
Oh there's definitely an externally imposed correct standard against which morality can be measured. It's called judgment day.
 
Oh there's definitely an externally imposed correct standard against which morality can be measured. It's called judgment day.
You have every right to outsource your personal morality to a myth. You can't force others to do the same. If this is your definition of an objective moral standard, then I'm quite content to walk away laughing.
 
You have every right to outsource your personal morality to a myth.
"Myth" is an interesting term. And I don't even necessarily object to your using it. But myth has to do with the significance of a narrative to civilization and its ability to function as such. In this case the civilization were talking about is human civilization in total. But the messages not have to be false it can be true so yes the narrative about God is creation of the universe and his bringing all of it to a conclusion ultimately you are free to call a myth. But it is a true myth. I'd love to take credit for this observation but I'm afraid it goes to CS Lewis.
You can't force others to do the same.
That's just the thing. Adults can't force other adults to do anything. As such we have a judicial system that tries to determine the truth of allegations of in fractions, and prisons and all kinds of things up to and including capital punishment. But you see all of these things are just a shadow of what is coming up on the last day. God in his providence I suppose could have made you submit but if he chose not to I certainly can't do more than he has providentially determined.
If this is your definition of an objective moral standard,
Yes, that would certainly be the standard.
then I'm quite content to walk away laughing.
You are scoffing at God by your rejection of his revelation of himself, long before I ever entered the picture. If I simply exposed it, that's a far cry from being responsible for it.
 
"Myth" is an interesting term. And I don't even necessarily object to your using it. But myth has to do with the significance of a narrative to civilization and its ability to function as such. In this case the civilization were talking about is human civilization in total. But the messages not have to be false it can be true so yes the narrative about God is creation of the universe and his bringing all of it to a conclusion ultimately you are free to call a myth. But it is a true myth. I'd love to take credit for this observation but I'm afraid it goes to CS Lewis.

That's just the thing. Adults can't force other adults to do anything. As such we have a judicial system that tries to determine the truth of allegations of in fractions, and prisons and all kinds of things up to and including capital punishment. But you see all of these things are just a shadow of what is coming up on the last day. God in his providence I suppose could have made you submit but if he chose not to I certainly can't do more than he has providentially determined.

Yes, that would certainly be the standard.

You are scoffing at God by your rejection of his revelation of himself, long before I ever entered the picture. If I simply exposed it, that's a far cry from being responsible for it.
No, I'm not scoffing at God. I'm not insane and I don't scoff at things I don't believe exist. I'm not even scoffing at you for your belief in God. What I'm laughing at is your assumption that your beliefs can, indeed should, influence my behaviour.
 
No, I'm not scoffing at God. I'm not insane and I don't scoff at things I don't believe exist. I'm not even scoffing at you for your belief in God. What I'm laughing at is your assumption that your beliefs can, indeed should, influence my behaviour.
I think someone who buys into insane trans ideology is on thin ice.
 
On the topic of Bach being better than the Beatles please review the following.

Great video for Today

Good Friday

Soli Deo gloria is a Latin term for Glory to God alone

Our son was adopted as a musician at age 14 starting University. His years, acapella, Madrigal singers chorales and choirs under a director who said Bach wrote to the glory of God. The Christmas concert had only one secular piece. He played violin in the symphony.
Strange world singing in a chorale standing next to a student he had in math class he taught. A student older than he.
 
Back
Top