"You are wrong. When the initial proposition is made that “God is immoral because of all the killing and other stuffs he is doing” it is obvious that the reference is to the Abrahamic God. The god of Spinoza or a deistic God does not interfere in our affairs at all. Therefore, the premise is Abrahamic God… not just any God. Therefore, the whole discussion starts from the notion that God (in the conception of the Abrahamic faith) is immoral because of the bad things that he is doing. Though it was not spelt out, this was understood. I am just spelling it out here."

Well, I went back and read the original proposition and read it as “God is immoral because of all the killing and other stuffs he is ALLOWING.” The original poster clearly stated that if one believed that "God controls everything" then he is effectively responsible for all of it, either through action or inaction. He also was careful to example natural instances, and not ones that are likely caused by human intervention. Seems to me that it is wholly compatible to most concepts of god.

"Are you saying that you are talking about a deistic god? Then the answer is simple. God is not doing any of these bad things. Period."

In my state we have a tort law called "duty to rescue", whereby there are circumstances in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In other words, we can be sued for failing to rescue someone. While we may be able to argue the ethical practicality of said law, you would surely see that god could be held liable for failing to act in some circumstances under this concept. Surely you would recognize that failing to prevent an easily avoidable tragedy could be seen as immoral by many parties.

"I did not say that the moral concept has to be agreed universally for it to be objective. I am only saying that the logical reasons presented should be verifiable by all – meaning anyone who is seeking to verify it."

Good, as long as we reject that it needs to be universally accepted, than we are zeroing in on what we mean by 'objective'. However, it should also be recognized that logical reasons are not universally verifiable, as synthetic propositions can be rejected. In the end, not all logically verifiable information is correct, as logic is about consistency and coherence. As long as a conclusion follows naturally from one or more premises, it is logical, no matter how false the premise may be.

We need just a bit more than logic to scratch at the truth, we also need true premises, which require making as FEW assumptions as possible.

"I cannot say the earth is flat and not give any logical explanation to it that can be checked out by another person, and yet claim it is objective."

There were arguments, and still are, that are being used to prop up this feeble position. They are incorrect, but a few millennia ago we did not have either the tools or ability to falsify them. Are you stating that a few millennia ago, before we knew better, a flat Earth should have been considered objective truth?

"But yes, there can be no universal agreement on anything… objective or otherwise."

This is mainly what forces people into relativism, they see no way to bridge the gap with so many different viewpoints out there. However, in the end, we already have an objective in the sense you alluded to, one as we have enshrined it in law. It is no longer a matter of an individuals perspective, there is a code that anyone who wishes to may go and verify for themselves.

"The rules of chess are objective because there is a logic to it that can be agreed upon by both players. If there was no logical reason to the rules, then the game wouldn’t be possible."

Not really, there are no good logical arguments as to why a rook does not move like a knight and vice versa. It is simply how the game was formed.

"This is all that I mean when I say that objective reasoning should have a logic that should be verifiable by all. I don’t mean universality at all. Thanks for the example. It helped me explain my position more clearly."

Perhaps.

"Reciprocity? Are you saying that if I give charity to the poor… I will benefit in some way from the society?"

Not directly. Reciprocity is a concept in social psychology that refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or a negative action with another negative action. As a social construct, reciprocity means that if you are friendly to people, those people are frequently much more friendly and cooperative with you and others. It even overwhelms even the results that are predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal, even toward others when the initial stimulus was unsolicited.

Ergo, if you are nice to people, other people are more likely to be nicer to you. It is a "Ripples from a pebble touch the whole lake" kind of thing.

"On the contrary, I see that people who are bad, who cheat others and make millions… they are born with silver spoons and die with golden spoons."

I never said it would make anyone poor.

"I don’t see their wickedness being reciprocated at all."

They are often hated by many people, that is reciprocation in action.

"And on the other hand, I see the honest, charitable person living in poverty and dying in horrible situations."

I never said that it would make you rich or disaster-proof, it isn't Karma. These people are often loved by everyone around them, and while that may not seem like much to you, I value it.

"Where is the principle of reciprocity?"

Wow, I didn't think the concept was so difficult to understand...

"In this thread, you said that the dropping of atom bombs is immoral. What consequences did those people who did that horrible crime face?"

A cold war. That is the consequence that America, as a nation, suffered for decades.

"Not even a court trial."

The 1963 Tokyo District Court Judgment in Shimoda vs. The State declared that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. In the opinion of the Court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Convention of 1907 IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 (which were never adopted) and was therefore “an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities.” Article 25 of The Hague Convention IV states that ‘the attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”

The Tokyo Court had ruled that the attacks were not justified by “military necessity,” a concept governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. An argument against illegality is that Hiroshima was indeed a military objective, and that detonating the bomb it helped in the defeat of Japan by forcing it to surrender. But this ignores the fact that this military target was surrounded by a civilian population, upon which disproportionate harm was inflicted.

In the trial of Thiele and Steinert, the US Military Commission held that: “Article 22 of the Hague Regulations stipulates distinctly that the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited, and this rule does not lose its binding force in a case of necessity. What may be ignored in the case of military necessity are not the laws of war, but only the usages of war.” In the Hostages case in 1948, the Nuremberg Tribunal recognised that the principle of proportionality applied in 1945, ruling that the degree of retaliation against civilians by forces under the defendants command were criminal due their disproportionate nature: “Military necessity permits a belligerent, subject to the laws of war, to apply any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the enemy with the least possible expenditure of time, life, and money.”

Although an argument can be made that in the WWII war crimes trials the concept of military necessity was only considered in connection with the following two categories of offences: (a) the treatment of prisoners of war and unarmed enemy persons, and (b) the deportation and devastation of property in occupied enemy territory, this is so because of the scope of the factual matters that were considered at Nuremberg, and there does not appear to be a legal basis to conclude that the principle of proportionality would not have also extended to the devastation of property in non-occupied enemy territory.

In the 2007 judgment, the International People's Tribunal adopted the Shimoda finding, and went on to conclude based on customary law and the Nuremberg Principles that the bombing attacks were deliberate attacks on unprotected cities, not justified by military necessity, causing the unnecessary and excessive deaths of civilians and thereby constituted war crimes.

It may still happen, but at the rate it is currently progressing, the pilots will be long dead by the time it happens.

"This is exactly what I mean by intuitive judgments. Even if I pretend to agree with you on the point that animals are non-sentient, winking at the fact that I see animals expressing kindness to their young ones, nobody can deny the fact that animals feel pain?"

We inflict pain on our own children as a form of punishment, is that immoral?

"What makes you think it’s okay to inflict paint to an animal (even if you think it lacks emotions and moral agency)."

I had my cat spayed, I am sure that hurt, was that immoral?

"By that logic… would you think it’s okay to kill a new born baby (as it’s sentient senses are yet not developed and it’s got no moral agency too)."

A. Circumcision, we routinely perpetrate pain on male children.

B. A being that has the capacity for both, yet has not developed it yet, is not the same as a being that never will. Plus, we are consider the value of humans as being greater than that of other animals, for plethora of reasons, some objective and some subjective.

"By the way, many people kill new born girl babies as they are considered a burden in India. By your logic they are not immoral."

Nope, comparing apples to oranges doesn't really work.

"Let me start from the last part of your objective “humans should do as much good and as little harm”… here you seem to have some a priori assumptions on good and harm."

REALLY? You honestly believe we have no objective means to determine if something is of benefit or harm to us?

"Moving on. According to this argument, you are saying that in the welfare of the group, rests individual welfare."

No, I am saying that the welfare of the group depends on the welfare of individuals, and vice versa. You cannot go too far either direction without disturbing the balance.

"But what if my individual interest collides with group interest."

That is when we look to the constitution and laws. Both individuals and society has rights and protections under the law, and provisions have been made to deal with such conflicts, whether we agree with them or not. Just because you do not agree with a moral does not make it automatically immoral, and if you do not agree with the law that does not mean that it isn't the law.

"Suddenly, I find myself in a position where I have no objective reason to abide by societal rules, because following it will only lead to my destruction."

Not following it will likely lead to your utter destruction. If you kill your half-brother, you will likely lose both your wealth and your freedom, possibly even your life.

"The whole idea of nuclear weapons is that of deterrence, which means nobody will dare to attack you if you have it. This clear goes against your ideas – unless these foreign policy experts are wrong."

Part of the reason the decision was made was because of the Japanese code of bushido—'the way of the warrior'—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (hara kiri). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect, which lead to Kamikaze pilots and Banzai charges, suicide tactics by 'disposable' units used to inflict maximum casualties.

American leaders were convinced that Japanese leaders were willing to die rather than surrender, Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive).

It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Unfortunately for them, Truman had other plans. The release on August,6 1945 at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the Little Boy containing about 64 kg (141 lb) of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at about 31,000 feet (9,400 m) to a detonation height of about 1,900 feet (580 m) above the city.

After the bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, "We may be grateful to Providence" that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had "spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won." Truman then warned Japan: "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

The Japanese government did not react. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.

On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city, and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinet that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."

American Magic codebreakers intercepted the cabinet's messages. That is the entire reason the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August, 9th of the same year.

So, no, we were NOT all that sure that the bomb would end the war.

"Well… that’s arguable. There are many reasons why you didn’t use it again. Because there were other nuclear powers in the world… and then suddenly there was a deterrent factor. Especially, with sovient Russia breathing down your neck with their stockpiles."

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."

"Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith", Federal Council of Churches - 1946

Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leó Szilárd, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with the sentence: "Let all the souls here rest in peace; this mistake shall not be repeated."

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:

If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

"“innate sense of empathy”… doesn’t sound like parameters for objectivity."

Depends on if empathy is verifiable, doesn't it?

"Your innate sense of empathy and fairness etc… are all a result of how your mind gets mapped in your upbringing."

Nope.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm

"That’s the reason that you feel it’s alright to kill animals. If you had been brought up in a caste in India, who are strictly against non-vegetarianism, you would be calling it cruel, and shudder at the thought of putting knife to the throat of an innocent animal."

Perhaps, I can't say for sure, but I was brought up in a caste in America that are strictly devoted to god; yet here we are.

"You mean the ‘innate empathy’? That’s not objective at all, is it? And I guess you are arguing that morality is objective in this thread."

No. I mean that we determine the morality of an action based on intent and consequence. That is why we have degrees of theft, and don't simply chop off the hand of everyone no matter what they were stealing. Some asshole stealing a big screen television is much different than a child stealing food to live.

"I think I have explained this above. We have agreed..."

I'll stop you there, no, we didn't.

"I would be glad to help you out there. More on it when we actually get to those points."

(Thumbs up)

"Agreed. When we get to the discussion on why I believe in a moral god and so on… I will have to explain it to you."

Agreed.

"I can agree with that. But we are not just talking about someone smarter than you… but it’s someone with absolute knowledge in the literal sense. So, it’s no comparison at all."

Actually, it is. If someone tells you to do something for a specific outcome, but refuses to elaborate on that outcome, you have no reason to assume it is in your best interest.

"Secondly, about his morality… I would like to hear from you what measuring tools you have to assess morality."

Assessing our actions and the consequences they have on others, within the confines of what we KNOW to be either beneficial or harmful.

"So, far all that you gave seem to be nothing more than mere intuitions and subjectivity."

Really...

"While, they are not even good to measure your fellow human being’s morality… how can you measure god’s."

Why would I measure your supposed god any different than I would Sauron?

"If you are measuring human knowledge between now and a 1000 years ago… yes we have advanced by leaps. But that would still be extremely negligible when compared to the absolute knowledge of god."

Can you prove that?

"This is not an assertion… this is from the premise of the initial platform – we are discussing the Abrahamic God” here."

Again with the appeal to an agreement we never had.

"It is by using our ability to think that we arrive at the conclusion that our knowledge is limited. In fact science itself rests on this premise that the things we can know are limited."

True, and it is also based on the premise that we shouldn't do extremely dangerous or harmful things we don't know the consequences of. So, it doesn't support your claim.

"Rather it should be worded like this “Consider this thing because it comes from the omniscient.” That’s why belief is not to be thrusted upon anyone."

We are not simply being asked to consider it, we are also being given a bald threat, which changes the philosophical dimensions of the debate quite completely. Thankfully, I have yet no reason to believe in either your god, or his punishment.

"What is behind the curtain is the unseen."

Which isn't god, because he is the first thing trotted out metaphorically speaking. Instead, it is the people using the illusion of a god, for their own designs and purposes.

"That’s why I thought the man behind the curtain should be god. IN any case, we can study the reasons the man behind the curtain (whoever it is) gives to follow what is being said. If it makes sense, we can take it. Or we can leave it."

True, and until the moral precepts of these unseen manipulators are explained, I have no reason to consider them anything but subjective propositions.

"However, if you realize that there is no objective way to analyze morality, then there is really no way to judge any system of morality."

Even without a concrete system, it is possible to make a partial analysis based on the things we can understand, which is much better than the nothing you are proposing.

"In that case, the only other option is to study the source and how reliable his/its knowledge is."

Knowledgeable =/= moral. No matter how reliable the sources knowledge, it doesn't matter if it isn't moral.