Kay17:


I don't think the Nazis supported subjective standard of morality, rather a naturalist morality proving their racial superiority against other races like Jews. Their naturalist morality was supposed objective otherwise it fell apart.

So what an objective standard entails can still differ depending on the respective perspectives.

Their naturalist morality was subjectively superior.

It is also concluded that a naturalist morality is socially destructive, even though popular belief treats naturalism with high esteem.

Kay17:


I don't think the Nazis supported subjective standard of morality, rather a naturalist morality proving their racial superiority against other races like Jews. Their naturalist morality was supposed objective otherwise it fell apart.

So what an objective standard entails can still differ depending on the respective perspectives.

?

How is this a logical outcome?

Joshthefirst:
Their naturalist morality was subjectively superior.

It is also concluded that a naturalist morality is socially destructive, even though popular belief treats naturalism with high esteem.

Neither a subjective nor objective standard say much about moral content. They are just a formulaic statement on validity. Subjective says my morality is valid while yours is as well regardless of the difference. Whilst objective says mine is valid and yours isn't.

Joshthefirst:
I of course expected this turn of events. Unfortunately your confession is open to all

Then Kindly post it here.

plaetton:


Then Kindly post it here.

Here it is.

plaetton:

Oh gosh,
It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

evil is self evident. according to you.

Kay17:


Neither a subjective nor objective standard say much about moral content. They are just a formulaic statement on validity. Subjective says my morality is valid while yours is as well regardless of the difference. Whilst objective says mine is valid and yours isn't.

No, subjective is about mine and yours, while objective is about truth.

And truth is self-evident. When you see a boy being bullied because of his stature or colour, you know within yourself that it is wrong, you know that humans have worth and should be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of stature or colour, even the bully knows, but he ignores this truth and chooses to follow his own base, erroneous, subjective subscriptions.

Joshthefirst:


No, subjective is about mine and yours, while objective is about truth.

And truth is self-evident. When you see a boy being bullied because of his stature or colour, you know within yourself that it is wrong, you know that humans have worth and should be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of stature or colour, even the bully knows, but he ignores this truth and chooses to follow his own base, erroneous, subjective subscriptions.

If the truth was that clear, we wouldn't be debating on NL..

For you the moral truth is what the bible says, for Socrates its reason, for Rousseau it's nature.

But the good news is your stand is an objective standard propped by God. Which leads my question: is God bound or restrained by morality?

Kay17:


If the truth was that clear, we wouldn't be debating on NL..

For you the moral truth is what the bible says, for Socrates its reason, for Rousseau it's nature.

But the good news is your stand is an objective standard propped by God. Which leads my question: is God bound or restrained by morality?

Any moral action is a choice of God wrt his creation.

Joshthefirst:
Any moral action is a choice of God wrt his creation.

With what you have said, do you think all is permitted with God?

Kay17:


With what you have said, do you think all is permitted with God?

I think that God has chosen his character as a just judge.

Joshthefirst:
I think that God has chosen his character as a just judge.

Yet he orchestrated the death of an innocent man -- Jesus, which was unjust by his standards.

Joshthefirst:


Here it is.



evil is self evident. according to you.

Good.

Below is what you posted , and which I responded to.



..Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.


Here, we see you , in usual form, trying to defend and justify self-evident evil.

Do you get it now, or do you still have issues with comprehension ?

Joshthefirst:


Here it is.



evil is self evident. according to you.

Nope. I never said that.
Stop the lying.

I said evil, referring to your God's genocidal tendencies, is self evident in his acts.
Self-evident meaning that it clearly illustrated in hour Bible, your belief system.

Kay17:


Yet he orchestrated the death of an innocent man -- Jesus, which was unjust by his standards.

The death of Jesus wasn't an immoral event, it was God's righteous judgement on iniquity. The innocent man became the substitute of us all and became guilty of all sin, and was punished accordingly. And as he took upon himself our sin and God's wrath, we took upon ourselves his innocence and God's favor. Salvation

plaetton:


Nope. I never said that.
Stop the lying.

I said evil, referring to your God's genocidal tendencies, is self evident in his acts.
Self-evident meaning that it clearly illustrated in hour Bible, your belief system.

You fall over yourself in confusion as you try to stylishly retract your confessed truth.

You have again stated belief in a self-evident truth: Evil can be self evident by the nature of our actions

Here's another higher truth: Evil is ultimately judged by the motive of our actions.

Joshthefirst:
You may have a reading problem, as rape isn't even mentioned in that passage.

So the young virgins were charmed and seduced with sweet words.

KingEbukasBlog:


https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

. Its a war story between Israel and Midian . This explains why

Trust me tomorrow I still post this same link

Is this your belief?

Well this is what I read in the link:

Some may object that the Israelites then married the virgins, the daughters of those whom they had killed and that this would be a horrible thing for the virgins. Perhaps it was a horrible thing for them. But, their lives were spared. Also, in that culture at that time, warfare and plunder was a necessary evil. The reality of taking women as wives was unfortunate but true.

First, I didn't know that you felt that it was better to rape a woman than to kill her. Some victims of rape, I thought, would wish that they had been killed by the rapist. Some (33%) become suicidal. i.e. They'd rather be dead. But if you say that it's better to rape than to kill then I guess your absolutely moral knowledge is greater.

Rape Victims Prone to Suicide

by Kevin Caruso

Rape is a horrible crime. And it effects the victims for the rest of their lives. Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are common conditions among rape victims.

Numerous rape victims have suicidal thoughts. Many die by suicide.

http://www.suicide.org/rape-victims-prone-to-suicide.html


In those days warfare and plunder and rape were a necessary evil. Necessary Evil!! Necessary Evil!! ? ? ?! I thought you said morality couldn't be relative. How could one moral standard obtain then and another one now?

Joshthefirst:
Saving girls who had never slept with a man does not mean those girls would be raped. Rape was a crime punishable by death in Israel.

No it wasn't! Rape meant that you got to keep the girl for ever.


If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29

PastorAIO:


Is this your belief?

Well this is what I read in the link:



First, I didn't know that you felt that it was better to rape a woman than to kill her. Some victims of rape, I thought, would wish that they had been killed by the rapist. Some (33%) become suicidal. i.e. They'd rather be dead. But if you say that it's better to rape than to kill then I guess your absolutely moral knowledge is greater.


http://www.suicide.org/rape-victims-prone-to-suicide.html


In those days warfare and plunder and rape were a necessary evil. Necessary Evil!! Necessary Evil!! ? ? ?! I thought you said morality couldn't be relative. How could one moral standard obtain then and another one now?

Rape ? Where did you see rape ? Plunder means taking spoils of war . If you dont know this then go back to your history books

PastorAIO:


No it wasn't! Rape meant that you got to keep the girl for ever.


If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29

Do you have a penchant for quoting unrelated bible verses

Deuteronomy 22:25–27

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,

27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

KingEbukasBlog:



Do you have a penchant for quoting unrelated bible verses

Deuteronomy 22:25–27

Actually the difference between the two verses is that in the one you quoted the girl was betrothed. So you are punished if you rape a woman that is already engaged to a guy, but if she is not engaged then you get to keep her. Na your luck be that.

It seems that the real offense is to the guy that the girl is betrothed to. It is for that offence to the fiancé it seems that the rapist is punished.



Also, you keep talking about me quoting unrelated bible verses. How is it unrelated? The one you then quoted is the very verse preceding the one I quoted. How are they unrelated?

KingEbukasBlog:


Rape ? Where did you see rape ? Plunder means taking spoils of war . If you dont know this then go back to your history books

I saw rape where it said they married them, and while that may be horrible, at least their lives were spared.

PastorAIO:


Actually the difference between the two verses is that in the one you quoted the girl was betrothed. So you are punished if you rape a woman that is already engaged to a guy, but if she is not engaged then you get to keep her. Na your luck be that.

It seems that the real offense is to the guy that the girl is betrothed to. It is for that offence to the fiancé it seems that the rapist is punished.



Also, you keep talking about me quoting unrelated bible verses. How is it unrelated? The one you then quoted is the very verse preceding the one I quoted. How are they unrelated?

You enjoy being disingenuous . Were you quoting the other verse to disprove Joshthefirst Yes ! He was right that indeed rapists in Israel were put to death during the bible days .

Women remain protected as the raped unbetrothed woman is now married to the man who raped her and the man is told sternly not to divorce her . Isn't it fair enough

PastorAIO:


I saw rape where it said they married them, and while that may be horrible, at least their lives were spared.

The price of rape was marriage to the victim and payment of a particular amount to her papa - this happens when she is unbetrothed . And a death penalty to the rapist if she is betrothed .

I am not sure where you dey find wahala . You quoting that suicide bs is to elicit emotions to appeal to your intentions

PastorAIO:


No it wasn't! Rape meant that you got to keep the girl for ever.


If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29

Oh really?

Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:*n25.1
Deut 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deut 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."


The bolded talked about the same issue.

Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist.

It is quite amusing to see Messrs Plaetton and Homer refer to self evident evil and the like, after such a long and tiresome insistence on moral subjectivity.

If morality is relative and subjective, I really don't know on what ground Yahweh can be condemned for even the most seemingly heinous acts. Nothing can be condemned, frankly, with such a worldview. In fact, words such as "evil", " bad" and "wrong" should not even exist.

However I expect these folk - Messrs Homer, AIO, Plaetton, Wiegraf and co - to continue chasing their tails in this matter ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Joshthefirst:
The death of Jesus wasn't an immoral event, it was God's righteous judgement on iniquity. The innocent man became the substitute of us all and became guilty of all sin, and was punished accordingly. And as he took upon himself our sin and God's wrath, we took upon ourselves his innocence and God's favor. Salvation

Although Jesus was innocent and was punished undeservedly, it was to serve God's greater purpose. Thus a bit of injustice is used to serve a greater good, isn't it?

DeepSight:
It is quite amusing to see Messrs Plaetton and Homer refer to self evident evil and the like, after such a long and tiresome insistence on moral subjectivity.

If morality is relative and subjective, I really don't know on what ground Yahweh can be condemned for even the most seemingly heinous acts. Nothing can be condemned, frankly, with such a worldview. In fact, words such as "evil", " bad" and "wrong" should not even exist.

However I expect these folk - Messrs Homer, AIO, Plaetton, Wiegraf and co - to continue chasing their tails in this matter ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

We can judge Yahweh upon his own standards. At least we can prove a hypocrisy.

Kay17:


We can judge Yahweh upon his own standards. At least we can prove a hypocrisy.

You can also judge Yahweh by your own subjective standards. Standards which you may or may not share with others of your society. If those you share these standards with, perhaps fellow discussants on this forum, display hypocrisy by embracing this common standard yet approving of it's transgression then that hypocrisy deserves to be called out.

Joshthefirst:
Very funny.

Hey read her own words.

Joshthefirst:

No, you did not really tell me, you only gave an ambiguous statement.

Looks like you're still confused. If you're confused that reasonable people think rape and murder of 6 month old babies is ambiguous, then you have deeper problems.

Joshthefirst:

But from what you say now, I suspect you go in the way of plaetton and finally accede the self evidence of good and evil. Nice. wiegraf is next. I hope deepsight gets hope and happiness in seeing his boys finally embrace truth.

Keep predicting the future. I won't be surprised that you'll be wrong as usual.

KingEbukasBlog:


The price of rape was marriage to the victim and payment of a particular amount to her papa - this happens when she is unbetrothed . And a death penalty to the rapist if she is betrothed .


I am not sure where you dey find wahala .

You don't think there's something wrong with thinking that the aftermath of rape should be marriage to the victim and money being paid to the father? Would this be your position if you had a daughter or sister who isn't engaged? What is wrong with you?

KingEbukasBlog:

You quoting that suicide bs is to elicit emotions to appeal to your intentions

So you think the fact that rape victims are prone to committing suicide isn't something important to be considered but to be banished as an ordinary appeal to emotions? Sheesh. You people.

May I just quickly recap what we are discussing on this thread before it gets derailed by lack of comprehension. Aside from what Zizek said in the OP, Kay then followed on with this:

Kay17:
This also applies to non theists. Violence in itself is neither evil nor good, it can be directed towards either an evil or good purpose. In most cases for ambivalent purposes. This lends people the desire to legitimize their actions.

In the case of theists, God is the authority, for some atheists and scientists it could be Truth or Reason. A purpose that makes legitimate any action. So with God all things are permitted, similarly with Truth all things are permitted!

I don't see anything here that suggests championing an absolute morality. People are moral. Everybody is moral, it is hardwired into the human mind. However how things are arranged in this moral scale is totally subjective. What some people consider good, others consider evil. And vice versa. Furthermore the morality of a people or even a single individual can be seen to evolve over time. What we once thought was good we now think is evil. etc..

People try to 'legitimise' their moral beliefs in various ways. Some people resort to God as the authority, others (like atheists) might resort to some abstract concept of Truth or Reason.

So the matter of Absolute Morality or Subjective Morality does not come into this discussion at all. To even bring it up shows someone has taken a wrong turn in the reading of this thread. Someone has Missed road completely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI6ZZsCElTo

I was then asked this question:

Joshthefirst:
Is rape good?

If I came into your home and killed your wife and children and stole your money, then escaped to someplace and eventually died. What hope would you have of justice?

What basis is there for our justice systems if morality is relative to superior definition and power?

The idea behind the question, I guess, is to suggest that everyone universally considers rape to be evil. This is rubbish. I therefore pointed out to him that even his final arbiter of morality did not disapprove of rape. What is obvious is that the morality of the Israelites has evolved over the centuries. Back then it was normal to rape and Yahweh approved.

Again the discussion on the ground is the use of God to buttress morality (whether subjective or objective). It is clearly demonstrated in that passage that God is used to validate rape, some are trying to twist out of it but it is not the only passage, there are other more glaring passages.

anyway, I responded to Josh thus:

PastorAIO:


Personally? I think rape is heinous. But this opinion is not universal. For example these guys and their God think it is just fine:



They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses

Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

I mentioned that my objection to rape was personal. And showed how God was even used to validate it. If a god was really the arbiter of an absolute morality as these people claim then how come atheists are still moral people. Buddhists don't believe in a creator god like Jews but they are still moral people. All people are moral people.

Is morality a human instinct?

Humans have a survival instinct. Even those that have beliefs of a glorious afterlife awaiting them thanks to Some god or the other, Even they will still cling on to this life no matter how miserable their existence in this life is. Why? Doesn't it make more sense to flee this miserable existence and go to the beautiful glorious afterlife. Sense or no sense the instinct is to stick around. Survival instinct.

So we have instincts that do not even make sense or tally with our beliefs. Morality is one such instinct. We are all instinctively moral. It's hardwired into the human psyche. The proof that this moral instinct comes to expression subjectively can be found throughout human history and also in the bible where we see an evolution of morality. In fact I think the bible is the best document to support the subjectivity of morality.

God does not confer morality otherwise atheists would not be moral. However God does buttress whatever moral stance you've already taken and if that moral stance allows rape then God might even encourage you to rape.