After all, wasn't the reason for trying to work out what was good, precisely to enable us to decide what we ought do?

Exactly. "Good", as a subjective descriptor is a functional label (when applied to actions and outcomes) for what an individual finds to be moral, which is what that individual ought to do. Of course a different individual will have a somewhat different set of what they find to subjectively be "good", and thus will have a somewhat different set of what is moral and thus what they ought to do.

If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint.

Animistic deities were definitely not omnipotent and animism started over 14,000 years ago. Polytheistic gods are also not omnipotent. Omnipotence, as you noted was invented by monotheistic religions about 3500 years ago, but had only minor, regional popularity. Monotheism didn't really take off until about 1500 years ago. So yes, omnipotence of gods is a relatively recent invention.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario".

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like.

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere.

Huh? You might consider becoming more familiar with a topic before posting authoritatively on it.

Everyone is aware that first cousin marriage is legal outright in 20 states and DC, right?

Just to be clear the concept of omnipotent (and omniscient) gods was invented relatively recently. Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent.

Despite the devolution of this thread into eugenics and the relative merit of not having children, the fact is that the main "wrong" of incest is when it involves unequal power dynamics, not birth defects.

Huh? I've spent considerable energy in this thread arguing against the concept of physically "proving" metaphysical entities, like gods. So, no, I don't need to define anything, since I'm not proving anything.

You?

You mean the typing "proof"? Well, it works great for unicorns (and anything else imaginable), so I'm not impressed, TBH.

As to whether gods are metaphysical, they are by my understanding, do you disagree?

Agreed, that's why my first post in this thread noted that it is a fool's errand to search for physical evidence to provide proof of a metaphysical entity.

I believe by "existence" you mean objective existence, which in the case of gods (or any other entity that only exists inter-subjectively) is, of course true (as I said). My point is that many things we deal with routinely and without controversy also don't possess objective existence.

Not quite. I'm pointing out the reality that in the past those with ideological differences tended or tried to follow their ideology where ever it led, even if they result wasn't to their liking. Currently groups advertise their ideology merely as a convenient label, but have no trouble not following said ideology if it happens to logically lead to a non self-serving (predetermined) conclusion.

God doesn't have any of those properties. God only exists in word.

Yes, the dollar's value can be "readily identifiable" after the fact, just as believers of gods can agree upon dogmatic properties of their gods. That's neither my point nor THE point.

Rather, the dollar only has value because the vast majority of humans consciously agree that it has value, that is, it has no intrinsic or objective value. Similarly, gods definitely exist as entities through agreed human belief that is, as intersubjective entities (like nations, corporations and economies), though not objective entities, as you noted.

The tragedy is the concept of unwanted pregnancies, which have the potential to result in unwanted children. Unwanted children are over represented in the criminal element as adults. Effective Birth Control has lowered this number considerably, but every BC method has a failure rate.

A not unreasonable opinion, but as anyone can tell, I was addressing Ourora Aureis' idea, I didn't originate the concept.

If you'd have read and understood what I've posted, you'd know that my use of the descriptor "Post Truth era" doesn't reference "ideological combatants".

One should only trust what should be trusted.

I don't disagree, but what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted".

Is Germany an entity? How about Apple corporation? How about the US dollar's value? Intersubjective entities are entities.

I do agree that the numerous definitions of gods will "require" different proofs. Having said that, more importantly metaphysical entities (which the vast majority of god definitions are) defy purely physical proof.

Exactly. Before the rise of Fundamentalism in the wake of the Born Again movement of the 1970s, many if not most Christians were comfortable with viewing the scriptures as a moral guidebook instead of a history textbook.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the relative roles of distrust as pertains to enemies in the Truth vs Post Truth eras. My point is that among those who share the same conclusions, say party members and party leaders, shared ideology trumps adherence to the Truth (meaning the generally accepted Truth, not ideological Truth). Thus the rise of QAnon believers etc among party leadership.

How much Truth (in the Truth era)? The exact same amount. What distinguishes the Post Truth era isn't the absence or lack of Truth, it's the marginalization of Truth and a degradation of it's public influence. Previously, there was a general public consensus of the way various entities work, say elections. Of course many disagreed with this understanding, but there was a price to pay for verbalizing (usually self serving) alternatives publicly, since acting in a blatantly self serving manner in a public forum went against the public interest, which meant something in the Truth era Thus speech about ideas such as gerrymandering, or electing election officials who would only certify one party's majority could only take place privately among others with the same viewpoint. In the Post Truth era, a leader pays no price for verbalizing self serving proposals since his constituents are only interested in his conclusion or goal, but don't care how he accomplishes it nor the "logic" he uses to justify it. So liberated from any downside from not adhering to the Truth, he's free to say (or do) essentially anything, and for the purposes of this thread, that includes lying.

Nice thead. We are definitely in the Post Truth era. But having said that, I'm referring specifically to the way obvious lies are treated publicly, not individually. In the past (as now) everyone had their personal appreciation of what they understand to be the truth. What has changed is the way what is commonly understood to be the truth (by a majority of society), no longer serves as a guardrail to moderate publicly spoken opinions.

For example, everyone has a preference of how a society should work. Many in the past, collected observations of society, pondered what "worked" and didn't work, then came to a conclusion based on their interpretation of the "evidence". Now many more folks come to (an expedient) conclusion first, then cherry-pick observations to support that conclusion. In the first scenario, new evidence can change the conclusion, in the latter new conflicting evidence is discarded (just as conflicting evidence was discarded initially) so the (usually self serving) conclusion is never changed.

Similarly, in the past public figures feared appearing to have conflicts of interest, or appearing to behave inappropriately and thus often tempered their behavior and their rhetoric to give the (often false) appearance of fairmindedness. Now public figures know that their constituents likely support their policies regardless, that is they and their constituents share the same conclusion of how society should work, so are willing to overlook impropriety, scandals and (for the purposes of this thread) lying.

Majority acceptance does not signify that a moral stance is right. That's what matters.

No one said the majority moral opinion automatically makes an opinion "right", so I don't know who you're addressing. I said when viewed in it's own era a majority opinion is reasonable. That is a logical train of thought can lead to that opinion. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reality that when dealing with complex issues reasonable, thoughtful individuals can come to different conclusions.

And if the majority decided we need to have a human sacrifice to help the crops that would settle it for you?

What this overly simplistic, knee-jerk response fails to acknowledge is that if we lived In an era where the majority of people concluded as you propose, we'd be in a level of human cultural development where you and I could reasonably conclude as you suggested. The attitude of the majority can honestly best be evaluated in the moral framework of the era. Thus why a moral stance that enjoys majority acceptance, when evaluated in it's own era, the majority acceptance signifies that the moral stance is reasonable (though perhaps not optimal) within the framework of it's era.

This is similar to an argument made for supporting slavery in America. It's not about humanity, it's about whose autonomy ought to prevail. Bad precedent to set

Nope, people (regardless of "precedent") can and have successfully navigated competing interests and have overwhelmingly concluded that slave owner and slave interests are equal (as adult humans). Similarly, the majority of folks have concluded that an adult human mother's interests outweigh those of a human fetus'. Simple, really.

Since the topic of the thread is the origin of the concept of gods, it bears mentioning that the issues of godly omnipotence and omniscience are relatively modern ones. The original gods were definitely superhuman, but often not dramatically so. Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena
such as sickness and say, lightning.

Does it imply that our perceptions are not direct? Could there be other factors involved in perception apart from the the object of perception, sensory organs, memories and experiences?

Exactly. More evidence that the brain (not the eyes) is where objects, real or imaginary, are "seen".

"The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins?" --Edgar Allan Poe

Yes, folks focus (overly focus, in my opinion) on the life vs death of the fetus when addressing the topic of abortion, whereas the crux of the issue lies elsewhere, namely whose autonomy should supercede the other's.

It just appears that way because of the schism between the people and the legislature.

If this was an exercise in all of the possible definitions of "house", then yes. But in exploring the agreements between the homeowner and the contrators, no.

The most common reason for advocating for abortion bans is not acknowledging that this topic is one of competing interests (fetus va adult woman). Thus any argument that addresses only one side of the topic (such as "abortion is murder") is at minimum incomplete, but usually is intellectually dishonest.

Think it this way. A house requires an architect who designs it. A builder who constructs it using the materials from the supplier.

A pile of building materials is not a house.

The OP implies that there is one entity called "love". However most agree there are different types of love. Some are described as a burning fire, others as glowing embers.

When someone really has your back, that's being loved. It's easy to be romantic when things are going well.

But the bigger issue is what it says about someone's life experience (and make up) who needs to ask the question. Nothing dramatic, I hope in your family's case. Good luck.

Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance.

The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander".

As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem".

The way the trolley problem is classically set up missed two important points. First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. Second, at the time the lever is pulled (or not pulled) the exact consequences of action or inaction is not known with certainty by the bystander. Thus the answer is "it doesn't matter", do whatever strikes you in the moment, you're not open to logical criticism either way.

Oh, I wasn't referring to the different subjective opinions on the "goodness" or "badness" of an action by various individuals, rather the reality that a single action which is (stipulated) objectively good for both the person performing the action and the person upon whom the action is performed can also be objectively bad for a third person whose bad effect may be downstream.

this OP is meant to explore, intellectually, the underlying justification for self-defense. Of course, the intellectual pursuit of a coherent ethical theory is going to be much different from the reasoning one may find through experience.

I am essentially endeavoring on determining a fully coherent and plausible account of what is right and wrong; and so, although it may seem in practicality obvious that self-defense is permissible, I must be able to back that up intellectually in a way that coheres with my ethical theory.

In your OP, the second stipulated premise is completely dependent upon the perspective of the observer (specifically the labels of "bad" and "good"). Thus any "good" action I may choose to perform can produce a "bad" effect upon someone somewhere, perhaps in a tengential and/or marginally important or even measurable way or amount. In that case (practically all cases if one searches hard enough), then the action may be good from my perspective and perhaps to the direct recipient of my action, yet be bad to a third party, perhaps remote from the primary and secondary actors. Is the action therefore "good" if the third party suffered a "bad" outcome from it?

To my mind there are two practical options to address this situation. First, one could also stipulate that only the primary actor's perspective is used. In that case self defence would be "good" since from his perspective he is saving a life. The other option would be to acknowledge that all actions have good and bad qualities so the entire scheme needs to be adjusted to mean: "majority good" and "majority bad" (instead of good and bad). In that case self defense would be permissible because while partially "bad", it is majority "good".

Do you mean animals besides humans?