"When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law. They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]."
tl;dr: I use my God-given conscience in parallel with the Truth as written in scripture (after all, it's less easy to deceive yourself that way) and revealed by God's Spirit.
I consider whether it offends my sense of morality, fair play, and decency. If it doesn't, then unless I have cause for further examination, then I just let it go. If it strikes me as suspicious then I start to evaluate why it's setting off warning bells. Generally though, it's due to something being disproportionately harmful compared to the catalyst.
Like, murdering someone because they cut ahead of you in line, that's a ridiculous level of retribution for what is normally a very minor inconvenience. Starving one's own children in order to try to coerce them into obedience is harmful not only to one's continual genetic survival for little gain but also an ineffective method of gaining obedience that instead just leads to further measures and further harm in addition to the harm one does one's self by indulging one's cruelty.
Saying that they don't have a hard and fast rule as to whether they find something to be wrong is different from saying that they do not believe that it is possible to do wrong.
Which is basically the choice offered here. Either we explain how we find things to be wrong or we admit that we do not believe in right or wrong. Or possibly correct and incorrect, but that's less plausible from context.
That's usually true with the exception of a subjectivity answer because of the following.i.e. to concede that it is subjective means that it is only relevent as much as we want it to be. Basically every time you modify your moral code, means the previous version was wrong and it seems that it is always wrong because we are always having to modify it. For example when the ancient mayans believed human sacrifice was 'wright', or when in the 40s/50s it was 'wright' that a husband force himself on a wife that was unwilling. These are examples of things that at the time were believed to be no more wrong than driving on the road. But you could say that this is part of an ongoing process and we are getting closer all the time, but are we? Mexico recently lowered the age of consent to 12 or in england a man named Tony Nicklinson wanted to die bebcause he was paralysed from the neck down but that was considered wrong so he was not allowed assistance (luckily he died soon after anyway), Basically do you believe we will ever reach or can reach a point where we get our human moral code perfect?
If it isn't possible then that means we will be constantly and perminantly wrong in what we decide is wright and wrong.
Well I'm a Moral Nihilist. I don't believe in "right" or "wrong"
Haha.
Though don't misunderstand me, I still think things like child abuse, murder, rape, etc are terrible. I just don't believe there is a universal "right" or "wrong"
Did you not read what I said? I don't believe in "right" or "wrong"
I think child abuse is always terrible. But that is what I, and the society I was raised in also thinks. I don't believe anything is universally "right" or "wrong" as morals are man-made. Same goes for rape, and murder.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
"When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law. They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]."
tl;dr: I use my God-given conscience in parallel with the Truth as written in scripture (after all, it's less easy to deceive yourself that way) and revealed by God's Spirit.
Like, murdering someone because they cut ahead of you in line, that's a ridiculous level of retribution for what is normally a very minor inconvenience. Starving one's own children in order to try to coerce them into obedience is harmful not only to one's continual genetic survival for little gain but also an ineffective method of gaining obedience that instead just leads to further measures and further harm in addition to the harm one does one's self by indulging one's cruelty.
http://mlkshk.com/r/CQY
Which is basically the choice offered here. Either we explain how we find things to be wrong or we admit that we do not believe in right or wrong. Or possibly correct and incorrect, but that's less plausible from context.
If it isn't possible then that means we will be constantly and perminantly wrong in what we decide is wright and wrong.
Haha.
Though don't misunderstand me, I still think things like child abuse, murder, rape, etc are terrible. I just don't believe there is a universal "right" or "wrong"
I think child abuse is always terrible. But that is what I, and the society I was raised in also thinks. I don't believe anything is universally "right" or "wrong" as morals are man-made. Same goes for rape, and murder.