Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[JGG]

So? That does not mean that genocide is not objectively wrong. Some people believed the earth was flat, does that mean that there is no objective reality about the shape of the earth? Of course not. Some people in mental hospitals think they are Napolean, does that mean there is not an objective reality regarding their identity? Of course not. This objection fails because you are saying that just because people disagree on whether or not a certain action is or is not moral, that that necessarily means there is no objective moral dimension to the matter.

That's fine. Perhaps there are objective morals. That doesn't mean that there are, and it doesn't mean we know what they are.

However, we have pictures of the Earth, people who have sailed around the Earth, people who have flown around the Earth (including myself). This all demonstrates that the Earth is round.

I'm sure would have a difficult time demonstrating to someone that they were not some reincarnation of Napoleon except to point out that he lived in the 1800's, and it is currently 2013.

How would you demonstrate that morals are objective?

You are really amazing me here. Do you mean to tell me that the Hutu were justified in committing genocide just because it was their subjective opinion that the Tutsi needed to be wiped out?

Not from my position, you know that. But from their position they were justified, and in fact God was cool with it. How would you explain to them that genocide is objectively wrong, and why did you fail to do so at the time?

You are saying that genocide is permissable if a race decides it is. That is what I gather from all of what you just said. You are the one saying there are no objective moral values and that no one can say any act, however atrocious is objectively wrong and therefore right and wrong are left to the individual opinions of men, many of which will use these opinions to formulate genocidal regimes.

Not at all. Pay very close attention here. I am very specifically saying that I personally believe that genocide is immoral. Indeed, your job is to convince those who believe that genocide is okay that it is not. How would you go about doing that?

Just because the Hutus did commit genocide does not mean that I condone it. I still condemn the act, just as I condemn the multiple genocides allegedly commited by the Israelites. Do not confuse the two.

I am just asking if you can demonstrate that genocide is objectively wrong, why did you not demonstrate that to the Hutu?

Your position should demonstrate to you why moral subjectivism is not tenable and definently not livable.

No. I am demonstrating reality. Regardless of whether there is objective morality or not, genocide still happens, and regardless of our position on objective morality, it will happen again. If you know how genocide is objectively wrong, how would you convince the Hutu that their opinion/understanding was wrong?

You seem to be overlooking the glaring fact that the vast majority of people in the world live as if there are objective moral values.

How is that? If objective morality existed, then it should be the entirety of people who live by them, not just the majority.

The handful you have picked out are the overwhelming minority who decide to base their actions off of a radically abnormal view of humanity.

No, I'm showing that the majority of people hold by the social pact. I am picking a handful who do not.

By the way, you do agree that not following kosher dietary restrictions is objectively immoral, correct?

 

[seeking Christ]

One would think that we could all agree that murdering an infant is objectively wrong. But you would be amazed. Several here say that it is not objectively wrong.

Ok but since you want to tie this in to God, now you have to deal with a fairly common objection. The Bible depicts God ordering the death of infants. The crowd here isn't going to let that one slip by.

How are you going to deal with these loose ends?

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok but since you want to tie this in to God, now you have to deal with a fairly common objection. The Bible depicts God ordering the death of infants. The crowd here isn't going to let that one slip by.

How are you going to deal with these loose ends?

Well, I would start by saying that what the bible says has no bearing at all on the moral argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps there are objective morals. That doesn't mean that there are, and it doesn't mean we know what they are...........

By the way, you do agree that not following kosher dietary restrictions is objectively immoral, correct?

Ok, blatantly contradictory statements aside.....

I will break it down for you by asking you this question:

Is there ever a situation or circumstance in which a Catholic Priest would be justified in molesting a young choir boy?

Yes, or no?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there ever a situation or circumstance in which a Catholic Priest would be justified in molesting a young choir boy?

Yes, or no?

In my opinion, no.

 

[Elioenai26]

In my opinion, no.

Then guess what, you are affirming premise (2) of the moral argument.

 

[JGG]

Ok, blatantly contradictory statements aside.....

Do you agree with my in-laws that not staying kosher is immoral? Once you answer the question I can see how you define what is objectively moral and immoral. I am answering your question, it would be common courtesy to answer mine, rather than evade it.

Is there ever a situation or circumstance in which a Catholic Priest would be justified in molesting a young choir boy?

Yes, or no?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, I can imagine no circumstance in which anyone would be justified in molesting a young boy. However, apparently it does happen, so clearly some people come up with something that convinces themselves. It doesn't mean I condone it.

Said boys are in no position to make decisions of a sexual nature for themselves, and thus is not a consensual act. Such acts also tend to cause mental trauma for those people who are abused. Do you disagree with that?

 

[seeking Christ]

In my opinion, no.

Then guess what, you are affirming premise (2) of the moral argument.

Cue "Hey, I'm a Believer Now" (Was that The Monkees?)

I bet you didn't realize becoming a Christian was so easy, did you?

 

[Elioenai26]

In my opinion, I can imagine no circumstance in which anyone would be justified in molesting a young boy.

Then you affirm premise (2) of the moral argument.

However, apparently it does happen, so clearly some people come up with something that convinces themselves. Do you disagree with that?

It does happen and some people desire to molest young boys for whatever reason. That does nothing to negate the fact that it is still objectively wrong to rape young boys.

 

[Ken-1122]

The phrase "individual objective" is an oxymoron.

Although I understand what you are trying to say.

I think I understand how you are defining objective vs subjective. Objective meaning it can be verified using facts, figures, and calculations; whereas subjective is left up to interpretations and prejustices of the person. If this is an inaccurate description please explain

Do you believe that there exists certain moral values and judgments that exist regardless of what people's subjective opinions might be? Yes or no?

Yes I believe some of my moral values can be determined using the above definition. Some may not agree with me, but that’s what I believe

K

 

[JGG]

Then you affirm premise (2) of the moral argument.

I can't. Just because you and I agree does not mean that objective morals and duties exist. Clearly, those who molest boys do not agree with us. I believe it is wrong because I can justify that such actions cause severe, and unnecessary harm to someone, and there is no justification for the action.

It does happen and some people desire to molest young boys for whatever reason. That does nothing to negate the fact that it is still objectively wrong to rape young boys.

So you say. But, how would you explain to someone who believes that such action is acceptable that it is objectively wrong? How would you explain to the Hutus, or the Nazis, or the Israelites that genocide is objectively wrong?

Do you agree with my in-laws that not following kosher dietary laws is immoral, yes or no? I don't see why this isn't a simple answer. You either agree, or you do not.

 

[IzzyPop]

Then you affirm premise (2) of the moral argument.



It does happen and some people desire to molest young boys for whatever reason. That does nothing to negate the fact that it is still objectively wrong to rape young boys.

But if someone believes that what they are doing is right then and someone else believes it is wrong, by definition, it is not objective.

 

[Elioenai26]

But if someone believes that what they are doing is right then and someone else believes it is wrong, by definition, it is not objective.

This is incorrect. I will show you why.

When I use the word objective, all I mean is that something holds regardless of people's opinions. In other words, it holds even if people do not agree or if they have different opinions about it.

For example:

There is a law that can be violated on most streets and highways in the U.S. It is called the speed limit. If you are driving on the highway and the speedlimit is 55MPH, then this is an objective value. That means that the speed limit is 55 even if people think it should be 60 or 70 or even 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not obey the speed limit and go 60 or 70 or 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not see the speed limit sign. The speed limit is 55 even if people see it and ignore it. And if you get caught breaking the speed limit, you will get a ticket.

Just because different people in different cultures have different perceptions and cultural customs regarding a particular moral value, that does not mean that the underlying value is not objective. For example, the moral duty to respect and protect the lives of innocent little babies is objectively binding. Just because some people throw their newborn babies in a dumpster does not mean that it is ok to throw babies in a dumpster. It simply means that they failed to do what they should have done.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When I use the word objective, all I mean is that something holds regardless of people's opinions. In other words, it holds even if people do not agree or if they have different opinions about it.

Agreed.

For example:

There is a law that can be violated on most streets and highways in the U.S. It is called the speed limit. If you are driving on the highway and the speedlimit is 55MPH, then this is an objective value. That means that the speed limit is 55 even if people think it should be 60 or 70 or even 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not obey the speed limit and go 60 or 70 or 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not see the speed limit sign. The speed limit is 55 even if people see it and ignore it. And if you get caught breaking the speed limit, you will get a ticket.

This is not a particularly apt "example". The 55 mile per hour speed limit is a legal convention. It could just as well be 60, 70, or 80 miles per hour on any reasonably straight highway.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

I can't. Just because you and I agree does not mean that objective morals and duties exist. Clearly, those who molest boys do not agree with us.

I don't think its that clear. Many criminals have remorse.

So you say. But, how would you explain to someone who believes that such action is acceptable that it is objectively wrong?

You already did that, in your post I snipped this from. I think you are establishing objective morality pretty well, if only within narrow constraints.

 

[seeking Christ]

But if someone believes that what they are doing is right then and someone else believes it is wrong, by definition, it is not objective.

I'm not sure we have to accept that. Some people will always be outliers.

 

[JGG]

I don't think its that clear. Many criminals have remorse.

Probably. Some do not.

You already did that, in your post I snipped this from. I think you are establishing objective morality pretty well, if only within narrow constraints.

That does not make it objective morality though. I simply rationalized my "opinion." This wasn't something handed down to me, it's something I worked out for myself. I may still be wrong. As was pointed out, I "just" stated my "opinion." I know that my opinion is biased, and formed by the social pact of my society.

I'm not stating that I know that there is no objective morality. Maybe there is. I object to people who make a claim that cannot be demonstrated.

 

[JGG]

For example:

There is a law that can be violated on most streets and highways in the U.S. It is called the speed limit. If you are driving on the highway and the speedlimit is 55MPH, then this is an objective value. That means that the speed limit is 55 even if people think it should be 60 or 70 or even 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not obey the speed limit and go 60 or 70 or 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not see the speed limit sign. The speed limit is 55 even if people see it and ignore it. And if you get caught breaking the speed limit, you will get a ticket.

Just because different people in different cultures have different perceptions and cultural customs regarding a particular moral value, that does not mean that the underlying value is not objective. For example, the moral duty to respect and protect the lives of innocent little babies is objectively binding. Just because some people throw their newborn babies in a dumpster does not mean that it is ok to throw babies in a dumpster. It simply means that they failed to do what they should have done.

Let's try some hypothetical thought:

Let's say there are two different worlds. In world one (1) there are objective morals just like you claim we have in our world. There are things that are objectively right and wrong. While some may believe that morals are subjective they are not.

In world two (2), there are no objective morals, but there are social pacts like I am suggesting. These morals are defined by necessary societal norms, and expressed through religious doctrine. While some believe morals are objective, they are not.

How would world 1 be otherwise different from world 2?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then guess what, you are affirming premise (2) of the moral argument.

No, I don't see that.

In my opinion, there is no justification for some Catholic priests' preference for Brahms over Beethoven.

This does not affirm a belief in the existence of objective standards of musical aesthetics. Quite the contrary. I realize my aesthetic judgments (and my moral judgments) are mine. Whose else's could they be?

And those perverse Catholic priests have their own judgments. I do not share them. And in my opinion, they are wrong. Even though I can recognize that everyone has his or her own subjective opinions on matters moral and aesthetic, I cannot disavow my own (they're the only ones I have!) and adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward their opinions. (I am not a moral relativist of the 'Anything Goes' or 'Different Strokes for Different Folks' varieties.)

Things like morality and aesthetics are things that only matter to persons... subjects of experience. There are no moral facts, only a wealth of subjective opinions.

 

[IzzyPop]

This is incorrect. I will show you why.

When I use the word objective, all I mean is that something holds regardless of people's opinions. In other words, it holds even if people do not agree or if they have different opinions about it.

For example:

There is a law that can be violated on most streets and highways in the U.S. It is called the speed limit. If you are driving on the highway and the speedlimit is 55MPH, then this is an objective value. That means that the speed limit is 55 even if people think it should be 60 or 70 or even 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not obey the speed limit and go 60 or 70 or 80. The speed limit is 55 even if people do not see the speed limit sign. The speed limit is 55 even if people see it and ignore it. And if you get caught breaking the speed limit, you will get a ticket.

Just because different people in different cultures have different perceptions and cultural customs regarding a particular moral value, that does not mean that the underlying value is not objective. For example, the moral duty to respect and protect the lives of innocent little babies is objectively binding. Just because some people throw their newborn babies in a dumpster does not mean that it is ok to throw babies in a dumpster. It simply means that they failed to do what they should have done.

All of morality is just an opinion. How does one define a moral? Is there a unit of measure that can be used to compare differing moralities to find the 'correct' one?


Oh, and you may want to go read 1 Samuel 15 before you talk about the 'objective' morality of protecting innocent babies.