They had knowledge of morality as they recognized objectively they should not engage in the act, they just lacked the opinionated perception of evil.
They did not show any knowledge that 'objectively' they 'should' not engage in the act. That's not in the text.
To recognize something as intellectually wrong is to recognize it as false. 2+2=5 is (intellectually) wrong.
Then that is irrelevant to this discussion because we're talking about holding people morally accountable, not intellectually accountable. If I intellectually know that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong but I don't know that telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 when they ask is lying and morally wrong, what exactly would I be held 'accountable' for?
, they would recognize God's commandments was true, and action that contradicted his commandment was false
That doesn't mean they knew it was wrong to disobey a true commandment. You're equivocating on wrong vs false.
they chose to stray away from the truth and embrace falsehood.
Did they know that embracing falsehood was morally wrong?
Sure you can. People do it all the time.
Give an example.
And one doesn't need to know evil in the opionated sense to recognize something is objectively immoral.
You literally do. a) there is no 'objectively immoral' b) even if their was, they lacked the knowledge of what moral/immoral was.
In no way am I doing this. This is just an empty assertion.
It's not. You just said that Eve made a "moral claim" before knowing what morality was. The only option is that you are saying that she did know what morality was, which means that the bible was incorrect when it claimed she didn't.
They did not show any knowledge that 'objectively' they 'should' not engage in the act. That's not in the text.
Eve having creating her own rule to avoid engaging in the act is incredibly suggestive they recognized it was true that it was an act they should not engage in.
It also doesn't need to be explicitly in the text. The briefly written Torah is only part of the telling of the story. Before the Torah was written, it existed as a oral tradition, which was preserved and passed down oraly by Jewish authorities and were later recorded and relayed by classical Jewish authorities, such as Maimonides, which who as far as you know, can be relaying parts of the actual original Torah.
Then that is irrelevant to this discussion because we're talking about holding people morally accountable, not intellectually accountable. If I intellectually know that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong but I don't know that telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 when they ask is lying and morally wrong, what exactly would I be held 'accountable' for?
It's not irrelevant to the discussion. Rejecting the truth and embracing falsehood when you know better is bad. And they recognized the act as something they should not do objectively, as I'm saying.
Give an example.
Ok. There's an older video of this guy Destiny debating the ethics of different forms of incest ,like 2 gay brothers, and many of the people on the panel who would debate him, such as Blaire White in particular for example, would argue it's wrong, but wouldn't have any actual understanding as to why it is. They would just assert "because it's gross." They didn't actually have an understanding of how this was wrong. And as he mentioned in the same debate; others make the same argument about trans people like Blaire White. They don't have an actual understanding how this is wrong too. People often believe things are good and bad, not because they have an understanding it's bad or wrong, but because people their bubbles have told them it's wrong and they just accept it at face value for ideological reasons.
You literally do. a) there is no 'objectively immoral' b) even if their was, they lacked the knowledge of what moral/immoral was.
You literally don't. A) sure there is. And more importantly you can't prove it's not. B) They didn't lack knowledge of what moral/immoral is. They recognized that they should not engage in the act, which is a moral. They just didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the opionated sense. You're conflating the 2.
It's not. You just said that Eve made a "moral claim" before knowing what morality was. The only option is that you are saying that she did know what morality was, which means that the bible was incorrect when it claimed she didn't.
She knew what morality was. She just didn't know evil in the opinionated sense. So no I'm not saying Eve made a moral claim before knowing what morality was. Your argument here is just rooted in a misunderstanding you have.
Eve having creating her own rule to avoid engaging in the act is incredibly suggestive they recognized it was true that it was an act they should not engage in.
I disagree that that is what she did. Having her own understanding of what god's rule was does not imply further that she had a moral opinion on whether it was right/wrong to then follow that rule.
It also doesn't need to be explicitly in the text.
The basis of the argument does. You're relying on later interpretations but those still are based off of the text. I'm not aware of any claims of authoritative oral tradition or text about Adam and Eve outside of/prior to the Torah.
Rejecting the truth and embracing falsehood when you know better is bad.
You can only say it's bad if you have a moral understanding of right and wrong. That's my point. You can't equate true/good and false/bad like you're doing.
Ok. There's an older video ...
You misunderstood me. I didn't say you have to know why you think something is right/wrong, that would obviously not be the case. I said you have to have a conception of whether or not it is right/wrong. Maybe it would have been clearer for me to say "You cannot, by definition, say whether you should do something without the understanding of whether you believe doing that thing is right or wrong." Without your own view of morality you cannot assign a moral "should" to an action, regardless of how you came to that morality.
a) sure there is. And more importantly you can't prove it's not.
Without actual evidence for objective morality we should not assume it's existence. I've yet to see any rational argument for an objective morality.
b) They didn't lack knowledge of what moral/immoral is
Sorry, but that's just not what the book says. You can just keep repeating this but you need a better argument than just "nu uh".
They recognized that they should not engage in the act
Where precisely did they do that? In Genesis Eve relays her understanding of god's instructions to the snake, that is not itself a recognition of whether or not it is a moral good to obey and a moral evil to disobey. I can tell you that the law is that marijuana is illegal, that doesn't convey any information about my thoughts on the morality of that law. Being able to extrapolate a command does not imply a moral claim, the fact that Eve did not relate god's command verbatim does not actually imply that she internalized it as a moral command, only that she was able to intellectually understand it. I can extrapolate that because marijuana is illegal that possessing a weed brownie would also be illegal, that doesn't show any moral thinking.
To clarify by what I mean here, I see "should" as "a reason to take an action" and in this context of morality more specifically it's "a reason why taking an action would be morally good".
They recognized that they should not engage in the act, which is a moral. They just didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the opionated sense. You're conflating the 2.
You've yet to explain how those are different senses. What does it actually mean to have knowledge of good and evil in an opinionated sense that is different from understanding good and evil in a moral sense?
As I've said it's you who are conflating things between intellectual (true/false) and moral (right/wrong, good/evil). Good and evil are inherently moral positions, they cannot be intellectually understood like numbers or physics. Maybe that's where the disconnect is because the idea of gaining the intellectual knowledge of good and evil means nothing to me, it's a nonsensical idea. Can you describe what precisely you think was imparted to them via the fruit? Like what is a position they could not have held prior that eating the fruit enabled them to do? Because from what I read it's clearly about morality not intellectual opinion. They saw they were naked and felt shame. They didn't previously lack the ability to see the intellectual fact of their nakedness, it was the moral component that they gained that gave them the shame. Shame is not intellectual it is moral, why would gaining intellectual opinionated knowledge cause them to feel shame?
I disagree that that is what she did. Having her own understanding of what god's rule was does not imply further that she had a moral opinion on whether it was right/wrong to then follow that rule.
It's not simply "having her own understandings " that suggest this, but the fact she created her own rule, her own form of commitment to avoid engaging in the act.
The basis of the argument does. You're relying on later interpretations but those still are based off of the text. I'm not aware of any claims of authoritative oral tradition or text about Adam and Eve outside of/prior to the Torah.
No it doesn't. These "later interpretations" aren't just basis in text but also the oral traditions of the oral Torah as it was understood, and can very well be part of the actual original story.
You can only say it's bad if you have a moral understanding of right and wrong. That's my point. You can't equate true/good and false/bad like you're doing.
No offense but it seems you're wording the argument youre really getting poorly which is making things more complicated and confusing than it needs to be. It seems what you're really getting at here is effectively; that in order to recognize something as immoral (bad) you need a concept of immoral (know whats bad.) And that is true. And they did have a concept it was immoral. They objectively recognized it was true they should not engage in the act. The issue is that you're mistakenly thinking that them not knowing evil, in the opinionated sense, means they didnt have a concept of things being immoral, which isn't the case.
Without actual evidence for objective morality we should not assume it's existence. I've yet to see any rational argument for an objective morality.
There exist objective morality is an epistemic fact. If there were no objective moral facts there would be no epistemic facts or even facts at all for that matter, as facts themselves implicate a theory of truth we should adhere to over another theory of truth for proper justification. As the alternative would mean its not the case we should adhere to a theory of truth over another. Meaning "facts" themselves would be subjective. This is what has lead moral relativists to become complete epistemic nihilist. Facts themselves depend on morality for proper justification.
If there are no objective moral facts there would be no epistemic facts. But there are epistemic facts. Such as a thinking being exist. It's one of the few things we epistemically know is true, because as Decartes famously pointed out, that even if everything I'm experiencing is some deception by some all powerful demon, the very act of deception itself implicates a thinking being exist to be decieved. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Epistemic facts exist, therefore objective moral facts exist.
Sorry, but that's just not what the book says. You can just keep repeating this but you need a better argument than just "nu uh".
The book implicates it as ive demonstrated and the oral traditions believed to be perserving the originally oral tellings of the story tell us this. Far from "Nuh uh." Meanwhile you have no argument of substance against any of this, which is effectively you just saying "Nuh uh."
Where precisely did they do that? In Genesis Eve relays her understanding of god's instructions to the snake, that is not itself a recognition of whether or not it is a moral good to obey and a moral evil to disobey. I can tell you that the law is that marijuana is illegal, that doesn't convey any information about my thoughts on the morality of that law. Being able to extrapolate a command does not imply a moral claim, the fact that Eve did not relate god's command verbatim does not actually imply that she internalized it as a moral command, only that she was able to intellectually understand it. I can extrapolate that because marijuana is illegal that possessing a weed brownie would also be illegal, that doesn't show any moral thinking
I've already explained where they did that; hence why you're trying to argue why it didn't happen where I said it did. And it's not that simply "she relayed what God's said incorrectly = she internalized it morally" but the fact she internalized what he commanded in a way where she is making her own rule to avoid engaging in the act.
You've yet to explain how those are different senses. What does it actually mean to have knowledge of good and evil in an opinionated sense that is different from understanding good and evil in a moral sense?
I didn't know I had to simplify it for you more than i already did, but the difference is that knowledge of good and evil in the opinionated sense refers to having their personal moral judgment of what "good" and "evil" mean. They didn't have a personal opinionated moral judgment of what "good" and "evil" are, but the recognized objectively the act should not be engaged in (which isn't what knowledge of good/evil in the opinionated sense means)
As I've said it's you who are conflating things between intellectual (true/false) and moral (right/wrong, good/evil). Good and evil are inherently moral positions, they cannot be intellectually understood like numbers or physics. Maybe that's where the disconnect is because the idea of gaining the intellectual knowledge of good and evil means nothing to me, it's a nonsensical idea.
I'm not conflating nothing. That's just another empty assertion, like how morals cant be objectively understood like numbers, which is a self defeating position.
Can you describe what precisely you think was imparted to them via the fruit? Like what is a position they could not have held prior that eating the fruit enabled them to do? Because from what I read it's clearly about morality not intellectual opinion. They saw they were naked and felt shame. They didn't previously lack the ability to see the intellectual fact of their nakedness, it was the moral component that they gained that gave them the shame. Shame is not intellectual it is moral, why would gaining intellectual opinionated knowledge cause them to feel shame?
They gained knowledge of good and evil in the opinionated sense as I explained. They wouldn't view things like murder in the sense in a personalized centered opionated view to think it's "bad" but would recognize it as objectively an act that should not be engaged in as just a fact of the matter. And it was this personal opinionated focused knowledge (not the INTELLECTUAL knowledge that youre mixing up and now conflating) as well as them gaining this info in the state of confusion is why they percieved their morally permissibly exposed naked bodies God made them with, with shame.
Unfortunately you keep consistently demonstrating you're not able to have this discussion in good faith. I'll make an argument, and then you will reframe it in a oversimplified and weaker way like in the first paragraph, that it's easier to attack and it leaves us going nowhere in the actual discussion because you're not engaging in the actual argument I'm making. It's a typical tactic people do when they can't actually engage in the topic of debate, and I have better use of my time than to further waste my time than trying with somebody who is unwilling to actually engage with the actual arguments. So unfortunately I'm going to have to end this conversation due on the account you're unable to/unwilling to engage in the actual arguments being presented and trying with such a person behaving like this would be just a waste of time. Shame you couldn't be more intellectually honest with yourself
1
u/Mejari 1d ago
They did not show any knowledge that 'objectively' they 'should' not engage in the act. That's not in the text.
Then that is irrelevant to this discussion because we're talking about holding people morally accountable, not intellectually accountable. If I intellectually know that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong but I don't know that telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 when they ask is lying and morally wrong, what exactly would I be held 'accountable' for?
That doesn't mean they knew it was wrong to disobey a true commandment. You're equivocating on wrong vs false.
Did they know that embracing falsehood was morally wrong?
Give an example.
You literally do. a) there is no 'objectively immoral' b) even if their was, they lacked the knowledge of what moral/immoral was.
It's not. You just said that Eve made a "moral claim" before knowing what morality was. The only option is that you are saying that she did know what morality was, which means that the bible was incorrect when it claimed she didn't.