Digs, I am actually a bit shocked at your vehement mis-characterization of Children. Maenad's response seems well reasoned to me. Lying is a learned behaviour that requires Language.
GB

I would have to disagree with you there. Children much as animals learn how to manipulate even without language. They cry to announce displeasure and rapidly learn that there will be a response when that occurs. If it is a favorable response, then they will try it again. It is manipulation at its most basic form. That they can do so without language also means that there are other behaviors that are innate. Manipulation at that scale develops into lying at a rapid pace because that's what lying is. It is deception. An untruth.

So children do have a sinful nature.

Also, if right and wrong were natural, true things, why must we be taught them (rather that instinctually know them), and why can our veiws on them change?

We don't need to be taught to do wrong; such a statement is absurd, when put to the test. Do parents ever need to teach their children how to lie? Do they need to teach them to live unchaste lives? Do they need to teach them how to sin, period? The answer is no! Children are deceptive from the moment they come out of the womb. Babies cry, when they don't need anything, merely to get their parents to come to them (a form of lying). They take things that don't belong to them, merely because they want it (covetuousness and theft). Along with a myriad of other things.

I seem to have missed quite a few posts in my hours away But I want to answer this statement.

We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

How do you know that facts exist? Upon what do you base this assertion?

If you want to debate proven facts I won't stop you, but I don't feel to inclined to argue that they do.

I have to say Andrew, that the definition of Murder, vs killing in Self Defense, by Accident, or to prevent the Murder of a great number of people (and so on), is inherently a rather absolute definition. Murder implies that the killing was not justified, or mitigated by any circumstances. This is an Absolute Moral definition of the term.

And yet, justified by who? Islamic extremists are justified in their own eyes for murdering infidels. We are justified in our eyes to murder them. What is right for us is wrong for them, and so the very definitions of right and wrong are not truly existant.

And finally, Andrew, you claimed that you don't feel that you have to answer to God. That's fine, if you are correct. But if what the Bible says is true, it does not matter what you or I think. God is not responsible to us, but we are responsible to him. Like or not, that is the way it is, if the Bible is true.

Indeed, if the Bible is true I'm going to burn in hell, "tormented day andnight forever and ever" as Revelations says. But even if it is, I have no interest in associating myself with the one who created this hellhole we call life.

Really? Where is the proof that that's just the way it is. If anything is true, the facts point in just the opposite direction. Facts do exist, and despite your view that murder is okay, and eugenics are okay, and the Nazi's weren't that bad, etc. . . most other cultures, societies and individuals concur (pretty much broad-spectrum concurrance) that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, etc. . . . . Look it up; these are more or less the ten commandments.

You said that separating lie from truth is the hard part, but by your standards it shouldn't be that hard at all. If lying and telling the truth are morally equal, then it shouldn't matter which one is believed.

As I said, I do not condone the Nazi's actions - what they did was horrific, terrible, disgusting and unspeakable - however I realize that just because it is "wrong" to me does not make it wrong.

Also, with that statement I was trying to say that realizing what is fact or not is the hard part - knowing what and who god is, or even if he exists, for example.

I think I've realized the main problem with our communication here: you all think that because I have personal guidelines, it means I believe in the nature of right and wrong. As I said before, in my views, just because something is wrong or right to me does not make it ACTUALLY right or wrong in the "real world," so to speak.

-----------------------

Here is a bit of an essay I wrote on moral issues that some of you might find interesting. Firstily I reccomment having this picture open while you read it:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg11 ... oflife.jpg

Here is the essay titled, My Hypothesis on the Circle of Life:

When looking into the forces of life, the emotions and events that cause us to choose what actions and decisions we make, it becomes nearly impossible to classify any person under one stereotype. It is also impossible – or ignorant – to classify their actions, for one action is only a point in a series of actions, and the motivation behind both the means and the end, is one side of the story, while where the action leads to will be another side. It is my belief, then, that every action, emotion, and state of being is not in fact existent of itself; it is only one pole of an axis.
Take for example the ideas of good and evil. Without evil, good would not exist. It would only be an idea, a state of existence, which is manifested in what we now call good. I will call this idea “red.” If you look on my included diagram at the red axis, you will notice good is on one side, and evil on the other. Now, here we must add our own interpretations into this illustration (to some extent), for what one man considers to be “good” may be “evil” to another. Basically, there is no true good and evil, only manifestations at opposite ends of the “red” axis, and personal opinions. The same goes for all of the ideas and actions illustrated in the diagram, and also ones that were not included, such as truth and lies, pain and pleasure, freedom and bondage, and any number of others.
On the diagram, you will see that there are green segments with arrows next to them. These are to illustrate how people move through the circle of life. There is one that leads from evil to good – the person starting in evil is met with love, and that turns them to good. Probably the most provable idea on this chart is the direct movement from action to reaction, for every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There are a number of lines included on this chart, and you could yourself add many others.
In closing, my hypothesis shows that while we should make our own decisions of right or wrong using our own free thought, we cannot define an action, person or emotion as any one of these absolutes, for they are easily and ever changing. We see many events, actions and emotions in the circle of life, and it would not be possible to classify them as good, evil, loving, hateful, etc., while remaining faithful to accuracy. Each of these ideas are not one idea or themselves; they have an opposite that allows them to exist as one pole of an axis.

No Starkat, manipulation is not necessarily lying. There is nothing untrue about expressing a need. Until language develops, crying is the only way a Baby has to express need.

Andrew, I think you misunderstand the point I was making. Murder is a term that implies unjustified killing. As an Extreme Islamic Jihadist (or a Christian one for that matter) might consider killing Infidels justified, they wouldn't call it murder. Yet they still have codes of conduct to refrain from killing that they WOULD consider murder.

Andrew:
We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

Are you an Objectivist, this statement sounds very Ayn Randian to me. Sometimes "Enlightened" Self-Interest isn't very enlightened. It can just be an excuse to behave Selfishly at the expense of others, which IS generally considered a good definition of "Wrong" in nearly every culture.

GB

We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

I call shenanigans.

I have seen children without speech time and again manipulate their parents into coming to them and picking them up just because they want something. Not because they need it, but because they want it. Which is an untruth. Or in other words lying. They may not be doing it maliciously, but they are lying to their parents that they need something.

I'm not saying manipulation is lying. I'm saying that it forms the foundation for a child to learn to lie. Both are deception and both are to some extent self serving. Which is why I link the two together.

Tis one of the reasons that parents have to step in so early to teach their children the difference between what is true and what is not.

Andrew, where do you get your guidelines from? Are they based on the culture around you or the people you are around?

*pops in briefly ... *

Having had three babies, myself, I can vouch for wee ones wanting their own way at a very, very young age. This is aside from naturally expressing their God-given need for food or changing. Just see what happens when you say "no" to a toddler when he sees that chocolate bar at the grocery check-out. Or even younger, I remember them screaming at the top of their lungs because something didn't 'go their way'. Innate. And we as adults are much the same, except most of us have learned to control it, at least outwardly.

Parents have to teach their children to do right ... not to do wrong.

Another point: if everyone followed what is 'best' for themselves, our world would be in an even worse shape than it already is. For it would be "me, myself, and I" first and foremost, leading to unrestrained consciences. Scary stuff!

* ... and out again*

Are you an Objectivist, this statement sounds very Ayn Randian to me. Sometimes "Enlightened" Self-Interest isn't very enlightened. It can just an excuse to behave Selfishly at the expense of others, which IS generally considered a good definition of "Wrong" in nearly every culture.

I'm not sure what that is, I'll have to look into it. And it's not "wrong," it just is.

I call shenanigans.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Andrew, where do you get your guidelines from? Are they based on the culture around you or the people you are around?

To me it is very important to think for myself. I've studied quite a few belief systems, probably most exstinsively Christianity (I was, after all, raised in the church). I take what people tell me and test it against reason, experience, wisdom of others, etc.

Another point: if everyone followed what is 'best' for themselves, our world would be in an even worse shape than it already is. For it would be "me, myself, and I" first and foremost, leading to unrestrained consciences. Scary stuff!

That's pretty much how it is now. Fortunately most of us don't feel the need to kill others.

Children don't have the ability to distinguish between Wants and Needs. Their Physical brains aren't even fully formed (in fact Human brains aren't fully formed until late teens or early 20's). Children also don't have the capacity to "help themselves" and need adults to provide for them materially and maternally. Equating a child's attempts to convey their wants/needs to lying seems pretty specious to me .

I don't disagree though, that parents have to teach children "Right" from "Wrong". I think I've been saying that all along.

Johobbit:
Another point: if everyone followed what is 'best' for themselves, our world would be in an even worse shape than it already is. For it would be "me, myself, and I" first and foremost, leading to unrestrained consciences. Scary stuff!

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, many of the problems in the world are due to untrammeled Selfishness and Greed. That's not to say that there isn't a place for TRULY "enlightened" self-interest, but that place ends when it imposes suffering on others. Also often unrecognized by Hyper-Individualism, is that there are Collective "self-interests", wherein people collectively work to provide for their needs.

Hyper-Individualism disrupts the balance between the Individual and the Collective just as much as Hyper-Collectivism.

GB

EDIT:

gandalfs beard wrote:
Are you an Objectivist, this statement sounds very Ayn Randian to me. Sometimes "Enlightened" Self-Interest isn't very enlightened. It can just an excuse to behave Selfishly at the expense of others, which IS generally considered a good definition of "Wrong" in nearly every culture.

Andrew:
I'm not sure what that is, I'll have to look into it. And it's not "wrong," it just is.

It sounds to me like you'd fit right in with Ayn Rand (and probably Aleister Crowley too). Insofar as Objectivism echoes some tenets of Existentialism and Libertarianism, I think it has some good points. My problem is that it takes Libertarianism to the Extreme, and ends up as a Recipe for Authoritarianism.

As to:"...it's not 'wrong,' it just is," I actually said it was a good (i.e. objective) DEFINITION of wrong. Yes, Humans define what is right and wrong. But those definitions have meaning and intent. As such, those definitions can be said to be objective.

We are really good at doing what we think is best for us. But how many times does doing what we think is best really best for us? Alcoholics always think another beer is best for them and getting drunk is the way to go. And it may seem like that for a few hours, assuming they are not driving. But the hangover is never pleasant. How many people keep doing what they know to be wrong but do it anyways? That list is beyond imaginable. Ask any drug addict if they like their drugs. By and large, they will say they don't, but can't escape it. What they thought was best for them really ended up controlling them. Ask any smoker. They will say they can quit at anytime, but when it comes to it, they can't. Why else are there so many ads for assistance to quit smoking. Because you can't break it on your own. Even if you know it's not good for you, you can't help but do it anyway.

This is what the sin nature is. You've said you don't really care if someone cheats on your girlfriend because you believe they are doing what they think is best for them. That's what they think. I've thought many things were best for me, and many times, I've been wrong. Does lying to get you out of trouble really get you out of trouble? It might for a moment, but in order to get of trouble later on, you have to tell a bigger lie to cover the first. It only compounds the issue and eventually you not only have to deal with the original issue, you have to deal with all the lies on top of that. Theft might make you richer briefly. It might be right to you to have that item right then and there and not have to pay for it. But is it right to the person who it was stolen from? The Arabs have a solution to theft...cutting off the hand. Is that right? To the vendor, yes. To the victim, no.

The point I am trying to make is that the argument of 'doing what is best for you' eventually leads to a dead end and serious trouble. I already mentioned how the Bible addresses this issue in Judges 19 when a Levite's concubine was raped and murdered when the men of the town thought it would be best to rape the guy. And the host thought it would be best to please them with his own daughter and the concubine. It is a tragic tale that culminates of years of 'doing what they thought was right'. It is very clear in any single human being that they don't need to be taught rebellion, selfishness, pride, or anything the Bible classifies as sin. And what a sinful person deems as right is still sinful. And it is only the grace of God that has prevented us from wiping each other off the face of the planet so far.

Empirical Evidence is the only verifiable "proof" of anything in the end.

This begs the question against theism, it would seem. You also bring up the problem of induction (hint: invoking G. E. Moore to escape will lead you to theism, ultimately).

If you want to debate proven facts I won't stop you, but I don't feel to inclined to argue that they do.

That they do what, exist? I want you to show me why I should accept your standard of proof for facts (if you have one: I still haven't seen it).

As I said, I do not condone the Nazi's actions - what they did was horrific, terrible, disgusting and unspeakable - however I realize that just because it is "wrong" to me does not make it wrong.

Then do not call it so---by their standards we are right and, as Wittgenstein argued, no form of life (language-game) can sit in judgment over another. It is illegitimate for your language-game to sit in judgement over that of the Nazis because they did not play your language-game.

I think I've realized the main problem with our communication here: you all think that because I have personal guidelines, it means I believe in the nature of right and wrong.

It is inconsistent of you to simultaneously say "There is no objective standard of morality" and then insist upon keeping a set of norms. Why? Because your standard of norms will de facto function as a standard of judgment.

As an example, you obviously think that I ought to believe as you do, otherwise you would not try to convince me. But why? If there is no objective standard to begin with, then there is no good reason why your position is better than mine. I am in no way obligated to accept any standard or criterion which you set up.

We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

Yet again, Chesterton is there first:

To preach anything is to give it away. First, the egoist calls life a war without mercy, and then he takes the greatest possible trouble to drill his enemies in war. To preach egoism is to practise altruism.

If you really believed in doing what was best for yourself, you would not be trying to convince us or anyone else. Why? Because it is in your best interest for everyone else to have a standard that you can then twist to your advantage. As soon as you start arguing for egoism, you undermine it in your own life: you suddenly become altruistic in practice.

Then you say:

Islamic extremists are justified in their own eyes for murdering infidels. We are justified in our eyes to murder them. What is right for us is wrong for them, and so the very definitions of right and wrong are not truly existant.

Why can't one or the other party be mistaken in their belief? I happen to think that you are mistaken in several beliefs, including your belief that there is no absolute standard for morality.

TBG

That they do what, exist? I want you to show me why I should accept your standard of proof for facts (if you have one: I still haven't seen it).

Facts are only what can be proved (unless you're into that Matrix stuff). It is a fact that we have gravity on this planet, it is a fact that human bodies work the way they do.

As an example, you obviously think that I ought to believe as you do, otherwise you would not try to convince me. But why? If there is no objective standard to begin with, then there is no good reason why your position is better than mine. I am in no way obligated to accept any standard or criterion which you set up.

You ask why, but you do not ask why not? I may not have a reason to argue it other than I enjoy it, but there is nothing to hold me back from it either. So I do what I see best to do.

If you really believed in doing what was best for yourself, you would not be trying to convince us or anyone else. Why? Because it is in your best interest for everyone else to have a standard that you can then twist to your advantage. As soon as you start arguing for egoism, you undermine it in your own life: you suddenly become altruistic in practice.

I do not always do what is best for myself, but I still trust others to do so. I love every person on this planet, even if I don't like them, and that is why I care about other people and don't want to see lives wasted chasing fantasy. And love is, as I said, putting others before yourself.

Why can't one or the other party be mistaken in their belief? I happen to think that you are mistaken in several beliefs, including your belief that there is no absolute standard for morality.

Well, you have a right to believe so.

TBG:
This begs the question against theism, it would seem. You also bring up the problem of induction (hint: invoking G. E. Moore to escape will lead you to theism, ultimately).

Empiricism doesn't require invoking Moore or Induction. Anyone can observe, repeat and verify an Empirical Fact. If you're arguing against Existentialism again, then you will undermine your whole Rationale for the Absolute Truth you claim for Christ.

And I shouldn't have to remind you that I'm not arguing against Theism, rather against an objective verifiable empirical standard for Theism.

GB

Facts are only what can be proved

What constitutes "proof" here? Even if it's just sense perception, there's the problem of induction: how do I rationally believe that just because the pencil has dropped a million times, it will necessarily drop again. Unless I make a faith assumption that there is some uniformity to nature (an unproveable assertion), I have no basis for inductive reasoning.

You ask why, but you do not ask why not?

No, because the question of why I should not believe as you do is irrelevant to me. I should not believe as you do because my assumptions and ground motives run counter to your set of beliefs.

So I do what I see best to do.

So your actions are determined, then.

I love every person on this planet, even if I don't like them, and that is why I care about other people and don't want to see lives wasted chasing fantasy.

How do you know it is fantasy?

Let me illustrate: let us suppose that I had a friend who was completely colorblind---saw the world in black and white. Would I be rational in accepting his insistence or reasons why all color-talk is just fantasy? No, I'd pity him for not seeing the colors. You don't see God, so I pity your defective sensus Divinitatus and am (I think) attempting to do a bit of surgery to get you to see God. Ultimately only God will convince you.

Anyone can observe, repeat and verify an Empirical Fact.

Go read David Hume---a dose of Hume is a good cure for nonsensical empiricism. This statement only works under the common sense assumption that nature is uniform.

And I shouldn't have to remind you that I'm not arguing against Theism, rather against an objective verifiable empirical standard for Theism.

I would say that I know that God exists in the same way that I know that there is a lamp in front of me: I look at the world and find myself believing that there is a God, just as I look at the world and find myself believing that there is a lamp in front of me. I can't help it if your sensus Divinitatus isn't working properly.

TBG

Yet again, Chesterton is there first...

Isn't he always?

And love is, as I said, putting others before yourself.

But why should you care about putting others before yourself, when your worldview, as you stated earlier, is that we "naturally" do what is best for ourselves, and we shouldn't care about the consequences to others?

See below:

We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

Stealing, fighting, and infidelity are all examples of putting yourself before others. These things come at great cost to others. (Not everyone is as enlightened as you and can ignore these hurtful actions, many of which leave deep emotional and psychological wounds.)

So my question is, where does sacrificial love fit into such a worldview?

No, because the question of why I should not believe as you do is irrelevant to me. I should not believe as you do because my assumptions and ground motives run counter to your set of beliefs.

Which is exactly how I feel about your beliefs. These arguments never really go anywhere because neither of us will ever be able to conclusively prove our beliefs, only make assumptions based on the evidence we have.

But why should you care about putting others before yourself, when your worldview, as you stated earlier, is that we "naturally" do what is best for ourselves, and we shouldn't care about the consequences to others?
...
Stealing, fighting, and infidelity are all examples of putting yourself before others. These things come at great cost to others. (Not everyone is as enlightened as you and can ignore these hurtful actions, many of which leave deep emotional and psychological wounds.)

There is no reason to care, I don't know why but I love people and being around them. It is not necessarily logical and I can put it out of my head if I need to, but I don't want to.

And as for what you (I assume mockingly) called enlightenment - it is merely the realization that, at the end of the day, I don't matter, and neither does anything else really. Now, you can either choose to hate everyone and everything, and I have definitely been there myself, and be miserable because there is no reason not to, or you can try to enjoy it a little bit (again, there is no reason to do so or not to do so). I make the choice to love people and be happy, but it's your choice to do the opposite if you wish.