It is based on principles....the principle being his will and his plan for us(should we choose to accept it). Thats what defines what is good or bad. Why? Because he creates the very concepts of good and bad to begin with.
...that's not a principle. Congress could pass a law banning yellow shirts. If you asked for the principle behind the law, "Congress passed it" isn't a meaningful response.
What you're describing is completely arbitrary. A god can call one killing GOOD and another killing EVIL even if they are identical in every way. A god can call rape bad today and good tomorrow.
There's no reason behind it, nor does it make that god "good" in any meaningful sense.
You really shouldn't use the word "murder" as that implies "unlawful killing". But lets switch murder to killing. One could easily argue that killing undesirables can be good for society. One could easily argue that killing sick or injured people will add to social stability. One could easily argue that killing off old people or animals will lead to increased happiness and social stability.
One can't easily argue any of those things. All people desire safety for both themselves and other people with whom they are connected, and living in a society where that is guaranteed is superior to living in one where people can be taken out into a back alley willy-nilly.
And guess what....there is no way for you to objectively state that this point if view is morally wrong. You could argue that it is based on your own personal emotions and conclusions but you can never objectively state that it is morally wrong. Why? Because without a moral law giver there is no moral law therefore there is no such thing as good and evil.
TCK, you can't state that it's any more objectively true even if you posit a god. Why would a god's personal conclusions be any more valid than mine? Because he's more powerful?
The only thing that exists is our personal, intellectual conclusions that are going to differ wildly across different sets of people.
But they don't differ wildly across different sets of people (outside of those with severe mental illness). Human beings all operate similarly and have similar experiences. Rational thought is normative. We all prefer to be happy and healthy and safe.
You are just itching to debate the Bible tho which is making this discussion tough.
I understand why you want to shy away from any mention of that.
Without a moral law giver there is no such thing as objectively positive or negative in which case people could easily argue that rape is a positive because for them it increases the quality of their life.
How can one argue that a rape increase the quality of their life? Rape is necessarily non-consensual, so if it the sex was wanted, then it wouldn't be rape.
Or are you saying it increases the quality of life of the rapist, therefore the rapist sees it as good? Would not the rapist have to apply the same reasoning to himself being raped?
You could argue that its negative but all you have is your own opinion. You could say "well, rape is bad because it damages a person physically and emotionally" and one could easily say "well, since when is damaging a person physically and emotionally a negative thing? I consider it positive!".
How can one argue that physical or emotional damage is a positive thing?
Sure thats what we expect moral behavior to lead to but many people develop their moral systems based on objective truths set by an objective moral law giver.
To be more clear, they develop their systems and then ascribe them to a powerful law giver to give them weight.
