DescentBB

Moderator note: This thread was split from what's your take on abortions? by Lothar.

I am going to jump in right at the (end?) of this debate and say this. There are many things in life that are questionable in society regarding things like abortion. What about the legal age of consent for sex? The problem is that the human race (generally) has decided that we can go it alone without a God or supreme being telling us what is right and wrong. Telling us there are absolutes. Without that being it all comes down to personal opinion and choice. Someone might not agree with abortion until she becomes pregnant then she changes her mind cause she doesn't want a kid. It is all about who is telling you what is right and wrong. Do I agree with the right to abortion: no. Not in any circumstance. Do I agree that the government can work it out? No way because in the end the government does what the people want anyway.

I am just amazed when i hear someone who fights for the rights of the trees and animals being killed for fur turn around and have an abortion! I have met these people. It is a whacky world. One day we aren't going to have a choice whether we submit to God or not!

IMHO I believe it is a matter of your religious belief and no amount of denying it will change that.

The problem is that the human race (generally) has decided that we can go it alone without a God or supreme being telling us what is right and wrong. Telling us there are absolutes. Without that being it all comes down to personal opinion and choice.

And isn't God a person too? Why should we ethically prefer his choice over somebody else's?

Also, see here and here.

Give us a viable account of how gods can create ethical absolutes that we are obligated to follow. Otherwise, your argument is not compelling.

Jeff250 wrote:And isn't God a person too? Why should we ethically prefer his choice over somebody else's?

Umm... sorry, what?

someone else wrote:I am just amazed when i hear someone who fights for the rights of the trees and animals being killed for fur turn around and have an abortion!

That's because you're either really close-minded or you like to exaggerate your comments.

Jeff250 wrote:

The problem is that the human race (generally) has decided that we can go it alone without a God or supreme being telling us what is right and wrong. Telling us there are absolutes. Without that being it all comes down to personal opinion and choice.

And isn't God a person too? Why should we ethically prefer his choice over somebody else's?

Also, see here and here.

Give us a viable account of how gods can create ethical absolutes that we are obligated to follow. Otherwise, your argument is not compelling.

I believe that same statment was postulated in Eden.

TIGERassault wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:And isn't God a person too? Why should we ethically prefer his choice over somebody else's?

Umm... sorry, what?

Consider Christianity: it claims that God is three persons. (I'm using "person" not in the "human" sense but in the "rational being" sense.)

Duper wrote:I believe that same statment was postulated in Eden.

Then I imagine that the theists have had all the more time to come up with an excellent answer.

sure.. 6000 years of unremittiant war has been wonderful.

Jeff250 wrote:Give us a viable account of how gods can create ethical absolutes that we are obligated to follow. Otherwise, your argument is not compelling.

We need to back up. There are two important arguments here, and I think we have jumped ahead of the primary one.

Secondary: Is the claim that the Christian God is the absolute authority behind ethics valid?

PRIMARY: Is any system of morality valid without an absolute authority behind it?

The secondary issue is a good one, well worth discussing, but not until we have gotten past the primary issue. As I said before:

"In order to support any kind of morality, you have to argue that it is backed by some absolute authority"

If there is not some absolute authority behind morality, then morality is just a matter of opinion and you can in no way hold anyone else responsible for having a different opinion. You can punish a murderer because they annoy you, but you can't claim any kind of justification for your act, because justification requires some absolute standard to measure against. Right and Wrong become meaningless words.

Unless we can agree upon the need for an authority behind morality, there is no point in discussing what may or may not qualify as such an authority.

Kilarin wrote:We need to back up. There are two important arguments here, and I think we have jumped ahead of the primary one.

Secondary: Is the claim that the Christian God is the absolute authority behind ethics valid?

PRIMARY: Is any system of morality valid without an absolute authority behind it?

Kilarin wrote:Unless we can agree upon the need for an authority behind morality, there is no point in discussing what may or may not qualify as such an authority.

I'm already granting that God exists. I'd be more than happy to grant that morality requires absolute authority to have this conversation.

The pro-life argument being made here is that (1) ethics need absolute standards, (2) God provides this standard, and (3) God thinks that abortion is wrong. Refuting any of these is sufficient for taking down the pro-life argument, and I'm choosing to attack 2 at the moment.

Perhaps in your own personal inquiry into the matter, you wish to address 1 first, which I will address myself below because it's interesting. But as far as defending the pro-life position outlined above is concerned, the ardent pro-lifer must be willing to defend all three points in order to defend his argument.

Kilarin wrote:If there is not some absolute authority behind morality, then morality is just a matter of opinion and you can in no way hold anyone else responsible for having a different opinion. You can punish a murderer because they annoy you, but you can't claim any kind of justification for your act, because justification requires some absolute standard to measure against. Right and Wrong become meaningless words.

Justifying punishment to the person being punished isn't a necessary feature of ethics. Ethics is strictly the inquiry into the good, i.e. what one ought to do.

Suppose that actor A punishes actor B for doing X. It seems conceivably possible, at least prima facie, that A ought to punish B for doing X, even if it is the case that if B were in A's shoes, then it wouldn't be the case that B ought to punish someone like himself. This seems perfectly consistent.

We might want a viable ethical theory where we can always justify to the person being punished why they are being punished, but we don't always get what we want.

Jeff250 wrote:Justifying punishment to the person being punished isn't a necessary feature of ethics. Ethics is strictly the inquiry into the good, i.e. what one ought to do.

But if your inquiry into the good is completely unrelated to how the terms good and evil apply to anyone else, then we get back to the situation where Jeffery Dhalmer has just as much right to his opinion on "good" (Good means eating your neighbors), as you have to your own.

Jeff250 wrote:The pro-life argument being made here is that (1) ethics need absolute standards, (2) God provides this standard, and (3) God thinks that abortion is wrong. Refuting any of these is sufficient for taking down the pro-life argument, and I'm choosing to attack 2 at the moment.

While, yes, the argument HAS been made that abortion is wrong because God says so, you don't have to go to that point to make the argument.

If you are granting that ethics needs an absolute standard behind it, a standard that applies to everyone, then without yet discussing the source of that standard, we might be able to agree upon what some of the standards are. Specifically, can we agree upon the postulates of ethics? The points that can not be proven, but are intuitively obvious. Either you get them, or you don't. Like the definition of a line, if someone rejects the postulate, there is no point arguing about it because they aren't arrived at by argument, instead they are the foundation of all other arguments.

There is a basic core of morality is the postulate: "You should not harm other people".
That rule has one exception, and two corollaries.
The exception is that you may harm someone in order to stop them from harming an innocent.
The corollaries are that violating property rights is harm, and so is breaking your agreements.

This is not ALL of morality, but it is the core that the vast majority of humanity will agree is binding upon everyone. Most of them can't tell you WHY it's binding, but they agree that it is.

So IF you agree that "You should not harm other people", then the only question becomes "when does a fetus become a people?", because once we agree that it qualifies as a person, it's obvious we should not harm it.

But, since the argument for conception as that point IS being made, and being made BY SOME based upon Biblical principles, we do need to address your question directly. IF we grant that there is a God, and that God is the creator of all that is, and that God says abortion is wrong after conception (and thats quite a few grantings), why would we be obligated to do what God says?

For a truly detailed and in depth argument, I recommend "Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas" <-online fer free! Yeah yeah, we protestants moan and groan about the Catholics a lot, be we owe them a lot as well. Aquinas is by no means perfect, but he was brilliant.

A completely inadequate summary is, that "God is his own Goodness"
God's goodness does not come from any outside source, it is part of himself. But it is also not arbitrary.

For a simpler argument: An absolute creator God, the source of all that is, has the authority to dictate ethics. I don't LIKE this argument as well, despite it's obvious logical appeal. I don't disagree with it, I just don't LIKE it.

For the argument I find more satisfactory:
IF we believe that right and wrong actually have meaning, then right and wrong MUST have a source, an absolute authority behind them. Because without that source and authority, they have no meaning.
The only POSSIBLE source for that authority would be the prime mover, the creator God who is the source of all that is. There can be NOTHING "before" the prime mover moves, and so all things, even ethics, must pour forth from the prime mover.

The creator God who built the entire universe and is the source of ethics, KNOWS a lot more than we do. We get into ethical quandaries because of our limitations, God does not. SO, in complex areas such as "when does personhood begin", it's intuitively obvious that God would have clear answers where we are not so certain.

Now, just to clarify again, not EVERYONE who makes the "conception" argument is using the Bible as the source of that argument, many feel it can be made on logical principles alone. But I find it very difficult to defend the conception argument without being dependant upon Biblical, or at least religious concepts. That's why I push for the 40 day brain wave definition of personhood. It's an argument that makes intuitive sense to most people And it's the argument that is safest when we are dealing with the bio-ethics quandaries that are fast coming upon us in the new bio engineering revolution.

Jeff250 wrote:

The problem is that the human race (generally) has decided that we can go it alone without a God or supreme being telling us what is right and wrong. Telling us there are absolutes. Without that being it all comes down to personal opinion and choice.

And isn't God a person too? Why should we ethically prefer his choice over somebody else's?

Also, see here and here.

Give us a viable account of how gods can create ethical absolutes that we are obligated to follow. Otherwise, your argument is not compelling.

Both questions are summed up by saying this.
If God created us then he knows how we function best. Those who made engines will tell you that you need oil, but some stupidly might say it doesn't need oil and the head cracks. So God creates man and says "don't do thus and thus and do thus and thus and you will live and be blessed and be prosperous" (Very simplified). God said sin and disobedience will result in death. So don't live that way. We said "jam you God I will do it my way. Why do I have to listen you anyway?" So the absolutes of a creator who designed us a certain way are ignored and we don't function correctly. That's how.

Now we run into some problems cause there are those who don't believe in God or that God created us. Well according to the Bible it makes no difference, you still are created by God and designed a certain way. I read a great quote the other day I think is relevant to what Christians believe about atheists.

"God doesn't believe in atheists so they don't exist"

Anyway I am not trying to be dogmatic about this but you asked the question and theres the answer according to the belief of Christianity. You can believe what you want and you don't need my permission for it either. Be happy.

God is not a person as you have asked in the sense of a created human. Yes he is a person in the sense of he is a being. God can be trusted to be an authority behind morals because he is a righteous and holy God. He is not a man that can be bought or pursuaded and doesn't change his mind to suit himself or others. Oh and the other thing is he is not voted in to the status of Godhood therefore doesn't need to be concerned if you and I agree or not

Kilarin wrote:But if your inquiry into the good is completely unrelated to how the terms good and evil apply to anyone else, then we get back to the situation where Jeffery Dhalmer has just as much right to his opinion on "good" (Good means eating your neighbors), as you have to your own.

Denying an absolute, universal standard of ethics doesn't entail that everyone's opinion is right or something of that sort. It's just denying an absolute, universal standard of ethics. Whether one's opinion provides one's true ethical obligations or whether it's one context of judgment or culture or what not will vary from ethical theory to ethical theory. Another possibility: no ethical proposition is correct.

Remember, the concept of ethics does not entail being able to convince people that they are wrong or being able to justify to them that they ought to be punished.

Kilarin wrote:Specifically, can we agree upon the postulates of ethics? The points that can not be proven, but are intuitively obvious.

I think that we should be careful when appealing to intuition in ethical inquiry. Even so, your postulates seem deficient. Consider a hypothetical situation where we have to harm an innocent person to diffuse a bomb that would destroy the entire world or something. Most people, for example, will intuitively allow a smaller harm of a smaller amount of people (or their "property rights") to serve a greater benefit for a greater amount of people.

Kilarin wrote:For a simpler argument: An absolute creator God, the source of all that is, has the authority to dictate ethics. I don't LIKE this argument as well, despite it's obvious logical appeal. I don't disagree with it, I just don't LIKE it.

A few things:

1) This still makes ethics arbitrary, for better or for worse. If God commanded us to murder, then that is what we ought to do. And we would have no recourse. We wouldn't even be able to say that it was wrong for God to have commanded that, since "wrong" comes from what God dictates.

2) Clearly set out your argument as to how authority to dictate ethics arises from being the creator of something. The actual mechanics of this were left out. (Can we even talk about authority outside of ethics?)

3) This isn't just a matter of authority either. It's also a conceptual problem.

Consider two friends arguing over the current color of the sky. One person says that it's blue. Because of differing biology, another person says that it's green. Then God descends from the heavens, with all of his authority and what not, and dictates that it's red. Does that somehow make the "right" color of the sky red? Does it even make sense to say that one can dictate the color of the sky and make it so? (Color is not a primary quality of matter after all.) It has yet to be shown that ethics isn't something like color.

Kilarin wrote:IF we believe that right and wrong actually have meaning, then right and wrong MUST have a source, an absolute authority behind them. Because without that source and authority, they have no meaning.
The only POSSIBLE source for that authority would be the prime mover, the creator God who is the source of all that is. There can be NOTHING "before" the prime mover moves, and so all things, even ethics, must pour forth from the prime mover.

When you say "actually have meaning," I assume you mean "actually have ethical meaning"?

Even here, it's not clear to me how this supports the argument that whatever God dictates is right. Let's suppose that ethical obligation existed before the universe. Is the source of that obligation what God dictates, or does God appeal to an external good, which may or may not influence what he dictates?

There's another problem with this argument as well. So everything poured forth from God. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to say that God is the source of everything. Consider an artist who paints a painting. Granted, if we follow the painting's causal chain up long enough we will find God. But it wouldn't make sense to say that the source of that painting was God. We would say that it was the artist. Or consider sunlight. We would say that the source of sunlight is the sun, not God. To say that the source of sunlight is God would be misleading or at the very least true only in some very trivial aspect. I think that in ethical inquiry, when we are looking for the source of ethical obligation, we are looking for the artist or the sun of ethics.

Smotie1 wrote:If God created us then he knows how we function best. Those who made engines will tell you that you need oil, but some stupidly might say it doesn't need oil and the head cracks.

Would a mechanic then know whether to balance an engine for performance or for efficiency? The decision to put oil into an engine doesn't involve values (or at least ones that would be in common dispute). It's clear that given some values, a mechanic would know best how to reach them. But it's unclear that the mechanic would be any more adept than a computer programmer at deciding what those values ought to be.

Jeff250 wrote:

Smotie1 wrote:If God created us then he knows how we function best. Those who made engines will tell you that you need oil, but some stupidly might say it doesn't need oil and the head cracks.

Would a mechanic then know whether to balance an engine for performance or for efficiency? The decision to put oil into an engine doesn't involve values (or at least ones that would be in common dispute). It's clear that given some values, a mechanic would know best how to reach them. But it's unclear that the mechanic would be any more adept than a computer programmer at deciding what those values ought to be.

You are assuming that the mechanic is bound to someone else's value system. There is no computer programmer! The illustration is saying that the mechanic is all knowing and righteous. Thus he creates an engine out of his great wisdom and holiness, the engine then is bound by the laws of the all knowing and righteous mechanic. The values are set by the mechanic because they are the values of the mechanic.

I think you know what I am saying is that the values placed in us are the values of the creator himself. There is no other setting the value system.

Morals and ethics are movable when you remove the one upon which they were formed.

Many years ago the Church began to teach morals and ethics without teaching Christ thinking people would respond to the Church more if Jesus wasn't taught. This brought many problems because once they removed Christ from the teaching then the morals could be questioned. "says who" would be the appropriate question in that case.

Back to the topic: Is abortion wrong? Yes. "Says Who" It isn't a question of law because the law can simply be changed. Take the creator out of the picture and the response would be "The Law" "The Government" "Your Mum & Dad"??? Human nature doesn't readily observe the directives of these "authorities" for very long.

Put the creator in the picture and the response is "God...the righteous and holy one to whom you will give an account to has made you in such a way that to do that would bring pain and suffering to others and to your life...and he doesn't want that because he loves you" It makes the world of difference.

Imagine if the entire world lived by that ethos!

There would be peace on Earth.

Smotie1 wrote:You are assuming that the mechanic is bound to someone else's value system. There is no computer programmer! The illustration is saying that the mechanic is all knowing and righteous. Thus he creates an engine out of his great wisdom and holiness, the engine then is bound by the laws of the all knowing and righteous mechanic. The values are set by the mechanic because they are the values of the mechanic.

I don't think you're understanding my point. You say that being all-knowing and righteous are important credentials for somebody designing an ethical system. But why?

Imagine you're God, creating an ethical system from scratch. Right and wrong does not exist yet. You have yet to dictate anything on the matter.

Now suppose you're all-knowing. What knowledge could help you decide what is right and wrong? You can't have knowledge of any values because you haven't dictated any yet. You can't have knowledge of what's good for humans because you haven't dictated that yet. You can't have any ethical knowledge at all, since that's the very thing you're about to dictate. So what sort of knowledge is going to help you create an ethical system?

Supposing you're already righteous too isn't really possible, since that's just an ethical term. You haven't dictated any ethical system, so saying that you're righteous is meaningless at this time.

Why should we favor the ethical system dictated by somebody who is all-knowing and "righteous," especially when we don't want to?

I see what you are saying and understand it. However what I am trying to say (forgive me for not being clear earlier) is that the moral and ethical system God set up I believe is based upon himself and his holiness and righteousness. This is who God is. God IS holy. It wasn't started from scratch at all.

For eg: If you know the story of the Children of Israel being delivered from the Egyptians and taken acroos the Red sea, you will know that God then gave them 10 commandments. Why? One of the reasons is that by them they will have a glimpse of who God is and what he is like. Don't forget they have just spent 400 years living in Egypt with their foriegn God's and beliefs. They have generally no idea who the God of Israel is. The commandments reveal what character he has.

We are commanded to \"Be holy for I AM holy\" God didn't have to think up the right and wrong thing as he went along and made man.

I think your question about what sort of knowledge is going to help you create an ethical system is not even worth answering. If you know everything it is pretty self explanatory that you are going to know what morals and ethics are correct don't you think?

I also think that your last comment reveals the true reason people don't accept a deity inposing his morals on us. \"We don't want to\"

Not because it doesn't make sense or it doesn't work or it is wrecking my life to have morals and ethics from a deity. We just don't want it.

Why shouldn't we favor the ethical system dictated by somebody who is all knowing and righteous? Who are we going to favor, someone who is an idiot and is morally bankrupt?

Personally I believe that all conjecture on the nature of God is problematic, as by definition god (if he exists) is a perfect being and we (who are defintely imperfect) are going to have trouble in coceiving on the nature of a perfect being - and therefore have trouble understanding God's morality (or lack thereof) in it's totality.

The way I conceive of it - maybe Perfection is not a static state but a state of dynamic equilibrium - in which case there would be infintessimally small moments of imperfection within god / his morality - which therefore allows for God's morality to be potentially flawed. If he were to make any decisions / actions during a moment of imperfection, his decision / action would be imperfect and therefore flawed.

Mind you, that's just one person's opinion on God's morality / nature... and an imperfect opinion at that

Smotie1 wrote:I see what you are saying and understand it. However what I am trying to say (forgive me for not being clear earlier) is that the moral and ethical system God set up I believe is based upon himself and his holiness and righteousness. This is who God is. God IS holy. It wasn't started from scratch at all.

All of the same problems still apply with this model. Ethics are arbitrary, based upon whatever ethics system just so happens to be inherent with God. Murder could be good, and giving to charity evil. You would be ethically obligated to do the former and to not do the latter. Why should you follow an ethical system like that?

And again, words like "holy" and "righteous" are ethical terms. Saying that God is righteous is saying what, that he is consistent with his own inherent ethical system? It's unclear how this might give authority to the ethical system itself, especially over other ethical systems.

And there in lies the problem. God is absolute Jeff. In all ways. You do not want to accept that and thus you will continue to continue to split hairs until all is a palatable much.

\"Holy\" and \"righteous\" have very specific definitions. It brush that away is relativism and achieves only chaos and anarchy ultimately.

I doubt that you will agree with this as this too is an absolute. but perhaps.

Duper wrote:God is absolute Jeff. In all ways.

In case you didn't notice, that's the very thing in question. Saying something is true doesn't make it the case. It doesn't even make it possible.

but see, I say it because it IS true. My Saying it doesn't make it true. That's existentialistic.

But I understand what you are saying.

How do you purpose would be a good way of proving this? ..if you were to that is.

Here's another way of laying out the tension. In order for a dictate of God to create ethical obligation, God must possess a certain authority. But what is the source of this authority? It can't be God's dictates, since he must already have authority to dictate his authority. So then it seems that this authority's source must lie outside of God's dictates.

One of Kilarin's arguments seems to be that God's authority over this universe arises by virtue that he created it. Shoku I believe also gave a similar argument once. Kilarin hasn't responded yet to my latest post, but I suspect one of the challenges he is going to have is setting out where this authority comes from. It doesn't seem like it can come from God himself for the reason outlined earlier. If it's from some sort of absolute ethical standard outside of God, like that one has the right to dictate absolute ethics over one's creation, then it seems as though the theist position that only ethical standards can come from God, which they for some reason think is important to maintain, will be conceded. Moreover, it seems like it opens the door for other standards of ethics to exist outside of God as well.

Personally, I'd concede that God or his dictates are the absolute source of ethical obligation. I'm really puzzled as to why theists maintain that position to begin with. It seems to have some utility in apologetics, insofar as it is used to beat down the poor, ethicless atheists. The Bible seems fairly silent on the issue.

Frankly, I think that conceding and then recognizing that ethics arise from something like the human life actually paints a more beautiful picture of God than what the theists set out. Even if ethical obligation did arise out of what God dictated, like how the theists maintain, saying that God is all-good would only be saying that God's actions are what, consistent with his dictates? Way to ruin a concept like \"all-good,\" theists!

How about this. Ethical obligation does arise out of the human life. God, out of his wisdom, is able to instruct us in how to best achieve this human good. Moreover, God is willing to allow even himself be subject to it insofar as he allows us to achieve this good in every way, hence his all-goodness.

Here is a thought experiment to think about. If God disappeared this very instant, would you really hold that you no longer have any ethical obligation? Killing wouldn't be wrong, helping others right, and so on? This is how the theists' ethics miss the mark in every possible way.

Jeff250 wrote:Here's another way of laying out the tension. In order for a dictate of God to create ethical obligation, God must possess a certain authority. But what is the source of this authority? It can't be God's dictates, since he must already have authority to dictate his authority. So then it seems that this authority's source must lie outside of God's dictates.

You have hit on a point which is relevant. In the Bible it tells us that when God wanted to swear by an authority whilst promising something to certain people. It states that because there is no higher authority he swore by himself. In other words there is no higher authority and God is saying this: "I am not God if this doesn't happen..."

What he promised happened BTW. It also states that "All his ways are just"
I understand scepticism in a world where thse in authority constantly abuse it and "who is watching the watchers?" is the cry of our generation but God is above all of this. There is no possibility for God to be anything other that righteous and ethical, not because he chooses that standard of ethics. But (again) this is who God is.

Jeff250 wrote:Here is a thought experiment to think about. If God disappeared this very instant, would you really hold that you no longer have any ethical obligation? Killing wouldn't be wrong, helping others right, and so on? This is how the theists' ethics miss the mark in every possible way.

Is it? Or is it really how the people in the world are going about their business nowadays. Each individual has made the choie to forget about God thus attempting to make him "dissapear" from their lives. You are right, then they think they have no obligation to live by his ethics. But this is a deception because even though much of humanity has rejected God and think they don't have to live under his morals and ethics, man will still be brought to an account by God.

It is like a driver who decides he is not bound by traffic laws and speeds until he gets arrested.

Smotie1 wrote:All his ways are just.

"Just" is another ethical term. Read my other posts as to why this is particularly problematic for your argument.

Smotie1 wrote:It is like a driver who decides he is not bound by traffic laws and speeds until he gets arrested.

Many Christians appeal to bad consequences of not following God's dictates, like burning in hell for all eternity and the like. But if that's the only reason why we should follow his dictates, then they aren't ethical dictates at all. They are dictates enforced through fear and violence. They are orders backed by threats.

A better compromise is to realize that goodness exists outside of God and that he simply helps us achieve it.

Jeff250 wrote:

Smotie1 wrote:All his ways are just.

"Just" is another ethical term. Read my other posts as to why this is particularly problematic for your argument.

Smotie1 wrote:It is like a driver who decides he is not bound by traffic laws and speeds until he gets arrested.

Many Christians appeal to bad consequences of not following God's dictates, like burning in hell for all eternity and the like. But if that's the only reason why we should follow his dictates, then they aren't ethical dictates at all. They are dictates enforced through fear and violence. They are orders backed by threats.

A better compromise is to realize that goodness exists outside of God and that he simply helps us achieve it.

Many parents appeal to bad consequences of not following their directives as well. All of life exists with consequences. That is not a bad thing, why is it viewed as a bad thing. Morals and ethics are reinforced by Love and Discipline. Discipline borne out of love is right discipline. Love without discipline is not love at all but indifference.

If God says live this way and you will prosper but if you don't you won't, in fact there will be consequences. That is not threats but a Loving God giving us boundaries. Ethics and morals are those boundaries.
I agree we have some good in all of us. It's just that given the opportunity we have a bent towards evil and sin, crossing the boundaries if you like.

Mankind has a history of rebbelling against the morals and ethics that God has put in place.

You're missing the point again. It is problematic for you to appeal to the consequences of not following God's dictates, because one of the things you need to demonstrate is why somebody should follow God's dictates solely by virtue that they are God's dictates. If you appeal to the consequences of not following them, that even goes as far as to suggest that goodness and badness might actually reside in the benefits or consequences themselves, not with what God dictates.

Jeff250 wrote:You're missing the point again. It is problematic for you to appeal to the consequences of not following God's dictates, because one of the things you need to demonstrate is why somebody should follow God's dictates solely by virtue that they are God's dictates. If you appeal to the consequences of not following them, that even goes as far as to suggest that goodness and badness might actually reside in the benefits or consequences themselves, not with what God dictates.

What you are asking me to do is impossible for someone who refuses to acknowledge that a deity is responsible for morals and ethics in the first place.

I have already explained why M&E are in place, who put them in place, the authority for God to put them in place and the consequences or benfits for following or not following them.

Read my earlier posts, if they are not good enough I might suggest you read "Schindler's List" for further evidence or guidance. Or read Duper's post earlier.

Smotie1 wrote:What you are asking me to do is impossible for someone who refuses to acknowledge that a deity is responsible for morals and ethics in the first place.

You do realize that that is the very thing in question, don't you? If you need somebody to assume that the conclusion of your argument is true in order for you to make your argument, perhaps you need a new argument.

Smotie1 wrote:I have already explained... the authority for God to put them in place

You didn't sufficiently address any of the key issues. The entire dilemma with God's authority is that such authority cannot come from God, since he needs to already have authority in order to be the source of his authority. So your response to that is to... state matter-of-factly that the authority comes from God? There's nothing insightful about that.

Smotie1 wrote:and the consequences or benfits for following or not following them.

Which is completely counter-productive. The theist's challenge is to explain why goodness somehow resides in God or his dictates, not in the benefits or consequences of following or not following his dictates.

Jeff250 wrote: Kilarin hasn't responded yet to my latest post

Sorry for the delay, not trying to skip out on you folks in the middle of a discussion. Just had some serious personal issues come up that have absorbed all of my time, and now that I'm back, work has to be caught up, and there's about four or five days worth of this debate for me to catch up on.

I'll jump back in with both feet just as soon as I can get enough time.

I know I'm skipping lots of good stuff I ought to be replying to. My apologies. There is just a LOT of material here and this post was getting very, very long and I realized that much of it was saying the same thing over and over, so I tried to trim it down. I ended up cutting a LOT. And it's still to darn long.

So, in the words of Inigo Montoya: "let me explain...no, there is no time, let me sum up"

Jeff250 wrote:How about this. Ethical obligation does arise out of the human life. God, out of his wisdom, is able to instruct us in how to best achieve this human good.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How could ethical obligation arise out of human life? What exactly is it that is "arising" and why does it arise, and why are we obligated to follow it?

Jeff250 wrote:Whether one's opinion provides one's true ethical obligations or whether it's one context of judgment or culture or what not will vary from ethical theory to ethical theory. .

When you say "true ethical obligations", what do you mean one is obligated by?
Do right and wrong have any actual meaning without an authority behind them? How can they be ethical "obligations" if you are not obligated to obey them?

EITHER, it's all just a bunch of theories, and there is no obligation to follow any of it. Or there is such thing as ethical truth, and that truth does not change with our theories.

Jeff250 wrote:Another possibility: no ethical proposition is correct

Absolutely! I see ONLY two logical possibilities.
EITHER there IS such a thing as "true ethics", in which case those ethics MUST be backed up by some form of absolute authority, because if they aren't, then they are NOT obligatory or true.
OR, exactly as you say, there are NO true ethics. There is no such thing as right and wrong at all. That's what I meant by saying that everyone's opinion on ethics was just as valid as everyone elses. But you've said it much better than I did by stating it in the negative rather than the positive.

Jeff250 wrote:Consider two friends arguing over the current color of the sky. One person says that it's blue. Because of differing biology, another person says that it's green. Then God descends from the heavens, with all of his authority and what not, and dictates that it's red. Does that somehow make the "right" color of the sky red?

But this IS the point I'm trying to make. If you do NOT accept that there is an authority behind ethics, then ethics have all the meaning of arguing about what flavor of gum you prefer.

Jeff250 wrote:Let's suppose that ethical obligation existed before the universe. Is the source of that obligation what God dictates, or does God appeal to an external good, which may or may not influence what he dictates?

Jeff250 wrote:Imagine you're God, creating an ethical system from scratch. Right and wrong does not exist yet. You have yet to dictate anything on the matter

There is no "before" God in Christian theology. God exists outside of time and created time itself. There can be no "external" good. If God was being held to some "external" standard of good, then God would not be God, whatever created the external standard would be. "God is his own Goodness"
And, as Smotie and Duper have been saying, God did not sit around and make up a system of ethics, Good is part of his nature. But that nature is not "arbitrary".

It's complicated, I freely admit that, which is why I prefer to concentrate on the earlier part of the argument. If you do not accept some absolute authority behind ethics, then all ethics become meaningless. If you do NOT believe that all ethics are meaningless, if you think that right and wrong mean something beyond mere opinion, then it's time to start looking for whatever it is that is the authority behind ethics.

Kilarin wrote:I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How could ethical obligation arise out of human life? What exactly is it that is "arising" and why does it arise, and why are we obligated to follow it?

That's an interesting subject for its own thread.

Kilarin wrote:Do right and wrong have any actual meaning without an authority behind them? How can they be ethical "obligations" if you are not obligated to obey them?

I assume when you say "meaning," you mean "ethical meaning"? A view like ethical subjectivism says that ethical statements reduce to non-ethical propositions, such as about one's feelings. So according to this view, which denies ethical realism, ethical statements can still have non-ethical propositional content. But this doesn't seem to be what you're targeting.

I don't think that "authority" is the best word here, since it's a word that's really only appropriate to be applied to persons. Can a tree have any type of authority? A chair? That wouldn't make sense to me. So I think that we should stray from the word "authority" when we don't mean to restrict non-personal sources of ethical obligation.

Does ethical obligation need to be absolute in order to give words like right and wrong ethical meaning? I don't see why. Suppose that person X has ethical obligation relative to his context of judgment and that person Y has ethical obligation relative to his context of judgment. How does right and wrong have any less meaning to X or Y than it would to them under an a divine command type of system? Is it really meaningless to them? X would just have a meaning relative to her context of judgment, and Y would have a meaning relative to his context of judgment. I realize that you might object to ethical relativism being able to account for ethical obligation to begin with, but then it seems as though that it is that which you should attack, not its ability to give meaning to words. Is there some presumption here perhaps that all words must have some absolute meaning or something?

Kilarin wrote:But this IS the point I'm trying to make. If you do NOT accept that there is an authority behind ethics, then ethics have all the meaning of arguing about what flavor of gum you prefer.

It's not clear to me that all subjective qualities are like that. Consider the statement: "Grass is green." Does the statement have any propositional content? Does the statement have any propositional content about color? Can we say that it is true or false? Is it true or false? Is their really such a thing as color or greenness? Do we need God to justify statements about the color of grass?

Kilarin wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Imagine you're God, creating an ethical system from scratch. Right and wrong does not exist yet. You have yet to dictate anything on the matter

There is no "before" God in Christian theology. God exists outside of time and created time itself.

Yes, it's a thought experiment, so it's not supposed to imitate reality in every way. You're supposed to imagine that you're God attempting to write ethics from scratch. You want to write out the good so that it is, well, good, but, of course, the good doesn't exist yet, so you're in quite the conundrum in deciding what to base it on. For the full story, you can read the original post. But saying that God never historically wrote ethics like that doesn't break my point. In fact, saying that God never even historically considered the issue and it just always was the way that it is almost seems to emphasize it. God-based ethics is arbitrary. Murder could be good if that's just God's nature. You couldn't complain that God's nature consists in an evil thing like murder, because, according to God-based ethics, murder really would be good in every sense of the way. Anyone attempting to defend the notion that murder was evil could be easily proven wrong if that's what God's nature consisted in.

Kilarin wrote:But that nature is not "arbitrary".

Then you need to demonstrate why it isn't.

One way to demonstrate this is to demonstrate why God's nature couldn't consist in murder. Are we just lucky that God's nature doesn't?

Jeff250 wrote:I assume when you say "meaning," you mean "ethical meaning"? A view like ethical subjectivism says that ethical statements reduce to non-ethical propositions, such as about one's feelings. So according to this view, which denies ethical realism, ethical statements can still have non-ethical propositional content. But this doesn't seem to be what you're targeting.

No, I mean are they TRUE, especially are they true whether we acknowledge or recognize them or not. I'm saying this poorly. What I'm trying to say is that for ethics to actually have any REAL meaning they have to be true in a way that is exactly the opposite of ethical subjectivism.

Jeff250 wrote:Does ethical obligation need to be absolute in order to give words like right and wrong ethical meaning? I don't see why. Suppose that person X has ethical obligation relative to his context of judgment and that person Y has ethical obligation relative to his context of judgment. How does right and wrong have any less meaning to X or Y than it would to them under an a divine command type of system?

If right and wrong are simply personal opinions, if there is no absolute frame of reference between them, then they are all pointless other than as personal preferences or illusions.
To try and put it in another way, let's jump back to the example that came up in the abortion debate. The man who rapes a 13 year old girl. Now, obviously, from MY point of view, what the man did was evil. BUT, if the relative/subjectivist point of view is correct, then that is just my opinion. The act may not of been actually WRONG for him to do, because he had a different point of view and different "personal ethical obligations". Which included the obligation to rape this little girl.

This is NOT a bizarre hypothetical example, because in several parts of this world, today, local judges have been known to order rapes as punishments. One particularly famous and notorious case involved the judge ordering a village of men to rape a man's young sister, in order to punish the man for some crime they had judged him guilty of.

SO, the question here is a concrete one. The men who raped that poor girl defended what they had done as actually BEING an ethical obligation. They had to do what the judge said.
When I say that they were WRONG, what do I mean? Why should my "ethical obligations" apply to these individuals who obviously had very different "ethical obligations".

IF ethics only has meaning on a personal level, then it doesn't really MEAN anything at all. There is no point in my saying that the judge, the rapists, and everyone who stood by and watched, were doing wrong if wrong is just something from my own point of view. It's like arguing about who is moving without having an absolute frame of reference. Both sides point of view are just as valid as the others, there is nothing to judge between them.

In order for the rapists actions to actually BE wrong, whether they recognized (or admitted) them as wrong or not, then there must be some ABSOLUTE frame of reference behind ethics.

<note:> I'm going to be out of pocket for a while, so my next response will probably be VERY delayed...

Kilarin wrote:If right and wrong are simply personal opinions, if there is no absolute frame of reference between them, then they are all pointless other than as personal preferences or illusions.

To try and put it in another way, let's jump back to the example that came up in the abortion debate. The man who rapes a 13 year old girl. Now, obviously, from MY point of view, what the man did was evil. BUT, if the relative/subjectivist point of view is correct, then that is just my opinion. The act may not of been actually WRONG for him to do, because he had a different point of view and different "personal ethical obligations". Which included the obligation to rape this little girl.

The relativist and the subjectivist points of view shouldn't be lumped together.

The ethical relativist does not deny that ethical propositions are possible and can be true. It's just that an evaluation of an ethical proposition is going to be relative. Ethical obligation is still real, but it's just relative to some context of judgment. This is usually said to be one's culture or society. An extreme ethical relativist might say that ethical evaluation is relative to one's personal opinions, but I don't think that attacking a position like that is doing ethical relativism justice.

The ethical subjectivist holds that ethical propositions are impossible and that ethical statements reduce to non-ethical, factual propositions. She also denies that ethical obligation exists.

Kilarin wrote:This is NOT a bizarre hypothetical example, because in several parts of this world, today, local judges have been known to order rapes as punishments. One particularly famous and notorious case involved the judge ordering a village of men to rape a man's young sister, in order to punish the man for some crime they had judged him guilty of.

SO, the question here is a concrete one. The men who raped that poor girl defended what they had done as actually BEING an ethical obligation. They had to do what the judge said.
When I say that they were WRONG, what do I mean?

It seems like there are two ways of approaching this question. The one is to analyze what you mean to say when you say that rape is wrong. This would, of course, be an empirical inquiry, not an ethical one. And not a very interesting one at that. But I think that one point here deserves to be made: it's quite possible that what you mean to say isn't actually what you're saying.

The second one is to analyze what your statement means. Let's consider your statement that rape is wrong and lets assume that it's a true proposition. Under ethical relativism, this might mean that rape is wrong (for you/your culture/your society/etc). Under ethical subjectivism, this might mean that Kilarin does not approve of rape.

Kilarin wrote:Why should my "ethical obligations" apply to these individuals who obviously had very different "ethical obligations".

They wouldn't under ethical relativism. (Ethical subjectivism denies that there is real ethical obligation.)

Kilarin wrote:It's like arguing about who is moving without having an absolute frame of reference. Both sides point of view are just as valid as the others, there is nothing to judge between them.

You're correct--neither ethical relativism nor ethical subjectivism accounts for the objective purport of ethics except to say that it is misleading.

Kilarin wrote:There is no point in my saying that the judge, the rapists, and everyone who stood by and watched, were doing wrong if wrong is just something from my own point of view.

Whether you should or should not present your point to the judge--that seems like a question of practical ethics.

Kilarin wrote:<note:> I'm going to be out of pocket for a while, so my next response will probably be VERY delayed...

Take your time.

Ethical morality are means by which we can make the most rational decision regarding things disposed by majority of public preference.

As for right or wrong, i would imagine it would be natural as to what fits the balance of positive/negative influences on younger offspring of the human race.

I.E. the more violence,rapes,robbings a child sees, the more detrimental society shall become and thus causing collapse of an otherwise \"higher\" society compared to say, third world countries.

Behemoth wrote:Ethical morality are means by which we can make the most rational decision regarding things disposed by majority of public preference.

If morality is dependant upon the opinion of the majority, then slavery was not immoral for much of the history of the USA.

Jeff250 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:Now, obviously, from MY point of view, what the man did was evil. BUT, if the relative/subjectivist point of view is correct, then that is just my opinion.

The relativist and the subjectivist points of view shouldn't be lumped together.

But in this case they are lumped together. The relativist and subjectivist points of view are not identical, but they both agree that:

Jeff250 wrote:neither ethical relativism nor ethical subjectivism accounts for the objective purport of ethics except to say that it is misleading.

Jeff250 wrote:Let's consider your statement that rape is wrong and lets assume that it's a true proposition. Under ethical relativism, this might mean that rape is wrong (for you/your culture/your society/etc). Under ethical subjectivism, this might mean that Kilarin does not approve of rape.

Neither of which would mean that rape is actually wrong no matter what. If you do not accept an absolute morality, then the village who raped the man's sister to punish his crime might NOT have been doing anything wrong. They might even have been doing right.

And that's the point I've been trying to make. Either you accept that there is some sort of absolute morality, an absolute frame of reference for ethics that makes some actions right and others wrong no matter who you are or what society you live in. Or you accept that the village who raped that girl might not have actually done anything "wrong".

If you find that possibility untenable, if you believe that right and wrong are NOT just illusions or products of our culture, if you believe that the rapists in this story are wrong whether or not they or their society thinks they are wrong, then the next step is to look for the source of the absolute standard behind morality.

...
For anyone interested, the story of the girl who was raped as a punishment for her brothers crime of having sex with someone of a higher caste can be read here. It's an incredible story because Mukhtaran Bibi refused to just kill herself and give up after the event. She insisted upon getting the government to prosecute the men involved (despite death threats to herself), and has since then dedicated her life to help young girls in Pakistan.

incidentally, \"rape\" is a base Latin word meaning \"steal\".

Kilarin wrote:If morality is dependant upon the opinion of the majority, then slavery was not immoral for much of the history of the USA.

It's unclear how much slave owners disagreed in ethics vs. how much they disagreed in facts. It's possible, for example, for a slave owner to think that no human should be enslaved but to also think that his slaves were in some aspect not human. If this is the case, then the slave owner does not ethically disagree with us but is instead mistaken concerning facts, by believing that some humans aren't really humans.

Kilarin wrote:Neither of which would mean that rape is actually wrong no matter what. If you do not accept an absolute morality, then the village who raped the man's sister to punish his crime might NOT have been doing anything wrong. They might even have been doing right.

It's logically possible. But there's nothing built in to the definition of absolute morality that would make rape necessarily wrong either. (In fact, by your own account, if God's nature consisted in or if he commanded of rape, then it would be good.)

Jeff250 wrote:It's possible, for example, for a slave owner to think that no human should be enslaved but to also think that his slaves were in some aspect not human

I would consider it an ethical decision to believe that someone was not human just because they have a different skin color than you do. The slaves could talk, think, sing, feel, etc. Anyone who could make themselves ignore all that and declare them not human IS making an ethical decision.

Jeff250 wrote:there's nothing built in to the definition of absolute morality that would make rape necessarily wrong either. (In fact, by your own account, if God's nature consisted in or if he commanded of rape, then it would be good.)

If God judges morality by some standard outside of Himself, then He is not God, whatever created the higher standard is. If you don't accept that there is ANY absolute standard behind morality, then, of course, you won't accept God's standard.

My point here WASN'T to try and defend the concept that God is the creator of the Absolute Frame of Reference for morality, but to say that if you DON'T admit that there must be SOME Absolute behind ethics, then you end up in the position of having to admit that it is "Logically possible" that the men who raped Mukhtaran Bibi were actually doing "right".

For a long and detailed defense of why God's goodness is not Arbitrary, I urge you to read "Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas". It's not perfect, but it really is a very interesting read.

Kilarin wrote:I would consider it an ethical decision to believe that someone was not human just because they have a different skin color than you do. The slaves could talk, think, sing, feel, etc. Anyone who could make themselves ignore all that and declare them not human IS making an ethical decision.

The inquiry into whether or not something is human doesn't involve good, bad, right, wrong, or any of the objects of ethical inquiry. It might be a biological inquiry, if you want to see what is of the human species. It might be a metaphysical inquiry, if you're of the type who believes in human essences or souls. Certainly the inquiry will have impact on ethical questions, and it's even true that espousing the wrong view might be of such ignorance as to commit a vice in and of itself, but the inquiry into what is a human is not itself an ethical inquiry.

Consider another example. Consider how many Christian groups with religious political agendas continue to perpetuate the myth that gay people choose to be gay. Whether or not gay people choose to be gay is going to be a fact. But it won't be ethical in nature. It might be biological or psychological or historical. However, the Christians realize that this fact can determine ethical decisions, which is why they continue to perpetuate their idea. (And, surely, similar to the slave owners whose ignorance itself was a dire vice, the Christian church bears great sin for continuing to accept and perpetuate this kind of ignorance as well.)

Kilarin wrote:but to say that if you DON'T admit that there must be SOME Absolute behind ethics, then you end up in the position of having to admit that it is "Logically possible" that the men who raped Mukhtaran Bibi were actually doing "right".

My point is that it is still logically possible, even if you DO acquiesce to absolute ethics, that the men who raped Mukhtaran Bibi were right. It's not built into the definition of absolute ethics that any rape is wrong. The ethical absolutist has to make the same concession as the ethical relativist. So it's not clear where you're going with this.

Jeff250 wrote:It's not built into the definition of absolute ethics that any rape is wrong. The ethical absolutist has to make the same concession as the ethical relativist. So it's not clear where you're going with this.

I think we are miscommunicating here, possibly because our background assumptions are very different. What you seem to be saying is that Absolute Ethics wouldn't be Absolute, that there would be some other standard they must be judged by. If the Absolute ethical standard is really Absolute, then there is nothing you can judge it by, it is what you judge all other things by. Rape is wrong BECAUSE it is against the absolute standard of ethics. To say that the Absolute standard of ethics could have been different is really meaningless. If it could have been different, then it isn't absolute.

Jeff250 wrote:The inquiry into whether or not something is human doesn't involve good, bad, right, wrong, or any of the objects of ethical inquiry.

I'll have to disagree. Slave owners were close enough to their slaves to KNOW that they could think, feel, etc. They would often forbid them to learn to read, just to help maintain the illusion that black people weren't as smart as white people. There is no way someone can simply decide that a person with black skin isn't a human without that being an ETHICAL decision, and a very BAD Ethical decision. Slavery was immoral in the US in the 1700 and 1800's just as much as it is immoral now. No amount of self deception by the slave owners changes that in any way.

Jeff250 wrote:Whether or not gay people choose to be gay is going to be a fact. But it won't be ethical in nature. It might be biological or psychological or historical. However, the Christians realize that this fact can determine ethical decisions, which is why they continue to perpetuate their idea.

Here we will agree AND disagree. I agree that having a genetic tendency towards a certain behavior has nothing to do with whether that behavior is ethical, or NOT. Some people have a natural tendency to be alcoholics. Men with a double Y chromosome have a natural tendency to be violent. According to Christian Doctrine ALL of us are born with a tendency towards sin. So whether or not there is a genetic or environmental basis behind homosexuality has NOTHING to do with whether homosexuality is ethical or not. AND I agree that it's wrong for certain elements of Christianity to be pushing this point so hard for exactly that reason.

The only disagreement I would have with you on this point would be your statement that "this fact can determine ethical decisions". Just because someone has a tendency towards a certain behavior does NOT mean they can't resist that tendency if they are convinced the actions it leads to would be wrong.

An excellent (and surprising) article on this topic from a Christian perspective can be found <here>

Kilarin wrote:I think we are miscommunicating here, possibly because our background assumptions are very different. What you seem to be saying is that Absolute Ethics wouldn't be Absolute, that there would be some other standard they must be judged by. If the Absolute ethical standard is really Absolute, then there is nothing you can judge it by, it is what you judge all other things by. Rape is wrong BECAUSE it is against the absolute standard of ethics. To say that the Absolute standard of ethics could have been different is really meaningless. If it could have been different, then it isn't absolute.

That's sorta the argument I was making against God-based ethics. I'm making a different one now against absolute ethics in general.

You claim that if we deny absolute ethics, it would be logically possible that your rape example was either good or bad. To put this another way, we wouldn't know a priori whether the rape was good or bad. But now suppose that I acquiesce to absolute ethics. It's still logically possible that your rape example was either good or bad. I still wouldn't know a priori whether the rape was good or bad. I would have to investigate God's nature or try to figure out what he has commanded before I can know that. But until then, I can't rule out either as a possibility.

Where absolute ethics might become more convenient is that if I already know that rape is wrong in one place, then I can assume that it is wrong in a different context without having to find out. But this is just a matter of convenience, one that I don't think threatens ethical relativism. (Not that I think that absolute ethics really provides for such convenience anyways. We can imagine a God giving different commands to different cultures during different times, and, in fact, many claim he did. So not even absolute ethics necessarily provides the kind of convenience of knowing that, if something is wrong in one context, then it is wrong in another.)

Kilarin wrote:I'll have to disagree. Slave owners were close enough to their slaves to KNOW that they could think, feel, etc. They would often forbid them to learn to read, just to help maintain the illusion that black people weren't as smart as white people. There is no way someone can simply decide that a person with black skin isn't a human without that being an ETHICAL decision, and a very BAD Ethical decision. Slavery was immoral in the US in the 1700 and 1800's just as much as it is immoral now. No amount of self deception by the slave owners changes that in any way.

It's not supposed to change whether or not slave ownership was immoral. But it does threaten your claim that the slave owners had greatly different ethical beliefs than we do, as opposed to just having different factual beliefs.

I've more than admitted that the slave owners' self-delusion is a vice in and of itself. But the object of this delusion is a matter of fact. Even in your post, you appeal to different biological facts that the slave owners must have ignored, like that the slaves could feel, think, were just as smart, and so on. In ignoring them, they were committing vice, but this doesn't change the object of belief itself.

Suppose that you had convinced a slave owner that one should not enslave other humans, but he argued that his slaves were not humans. What types of things would you appeal to to convince him otherwise? It's unclear how appealing to ethics is going to settle this question. The best case scenario would be an imperative written in the clouds like that one ought to consider all things of X characteristics human. But it's unclear how this really settles the question of what really is a human, which is what you would need to demonstrate.

Kilarin wrote:

Behemoth wrote:Ethical morality are means by which we can make the most rational decision regarding things disposed by majority of public preference.

If morality is dependant upon the opinion of the majority, then slavery was not immoral for much of the history of the USA.

I do not find slavery immoral.
So now we have a split of opinions based on perception of trend dominated by majority of hands, no?