Absolute Morality

[dysert]

and this is where christian morality seems subjective to me, because it is always your interpretation of what you think jesus would do, or what god would want you to do, or what the bible tells you to do. And everyone seems to have different interpretations, so it is hard to call christian morality objective, is it not?

No, it's not hard to call Christian morality objective. As I said in Post #10, "Just because a group of people don't agree on something doesn't mean that that 'something' doesn't exist." There are tons of Christians who don't agree on when Man came on the scene -- yet here we are. Objective morality is found in the Bible. The fact that there are different interpretations of the Bible doesn't mean the morality isn't there. It means we have to do our homework in order to properly understand what the Bible is teaching.

 

[mathclub]

No, it's not hard to call Christian morality objective. As I said in Post #10, "Just because a group of people don't agree on something doesn't mean that that 'something' doesn't exist." There are tons of Christians who don't agree on when Man came on the scene -- yet here we are. Objective morality is found in the Bible. The fact that there are different interpretations of the Bible doesn't mean the morality isn't there. It means we have to do our homework in order to properly understand what the Bible is teaching.

I guess it is objective in a theoretical sense, in terms of gods morality being objective. But practicality, it is not objective at all. It is just subjective, depending on how you want to interpret the bible. Objective morality is not found in the bible from what I can see, because it all depends on how you interpret it.

 

[dysert]

I guess it is objective in a theoretical sense, in terms of gods morality being objective. But practicality, it is not objective at all. It is just subjective, depending on how you want to interpret the bible. Objective morality is not found in the bible from what I can see, because it all depends on how you interpret it.

Perhaps we can agree that, while there is objective morality, its implementation varies from person to person?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everyone's morality is subjective. We are all looking for ways to justify what we feel is right and wrong.

Wow. This is not true in my personal experience.

In the past, I have accepted moral views that I did not feel were right, and on the weight of the arguments. In time, I came to feel that my new understanding was right. My thoughts were ahead of my feelings on the matter.

Granted, I may be an exception, but that disproves absolute statements such as "everyone's morality is subjective".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jpcedotal]

Jesus did a lot more than miracles. Read how he interacted with different people, how He always had time for others, how He tried to get to know people on a personal level, how He never did any miracle or even any non-miracle for Himself...it was always for the good of those around Him.

The miracle aspect was only for the sign Christ wanted to reveal...the power, the "Who" behind the supernatural wonder.

 

[Glas Ridire]

This sounds similar to secular objective morality, where every situation has one true and ultimately best moral decision, whether the society of the day or the individual in that situation recognizes it or not. And it's not a 2 choice, black and white thing between moral and immoral, there may be many courses of actions that are moral, with some being more moral than others. The only difference being, of course, that you feel that objective morality is gods morality, and in the secular version the objective morality is the best moral action that can be taken, rather than gods morality. And, in any case, it is tough for us to decipher what exactly the objective moral action is in either model.

That is the neat thing about truth, you don't have to believe in God to have the truth resound clearly. You are right in interpreting what I have said in the paragraph I am quoting above, Natural Law is, and we can each have our own points of view on how it came to be.

Natural Law is not always fluffy and cuddly, a natural consequence of attempting to rob someone today is being shot. Back in the OT, slavery was a consequence too, of mismanaging one's resources, of failure to repay debts, many such things. It was brutal, something to be feared and avoided, but by God's design . .. it was not to be permanent, generation to generation. There was to be reprieve, second chances, more mercy than the surrounding cultures of the time.

 

[keith99]

Wow. This is not true in my personal experience.

In the past, I have accepted moral views that I did not feel were right, and on the weight of the arguments. In time, I came to feel that my new understanding was right. My thoughts were ahead of my feelings on the matter.

Granted, I may be an exception, but that disproves absolute statements such as "everyone's morality is subjective".


eudaimonia,

Mark

You really need to learn what objective and subjective mean.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You really need to learn what objective and subjective mean.

I had provisionally accepted Jade Margery's definition of "subjective" so that I could form a reply to her. See her post for context. I don't necessarily use her definitions in my own thoughts on ethics.

But do enlighten us with your definitions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[keith99]

I had provisionally accepted Jade Margery's definition of "subjective" so that I could form a reply to her. See her post for context. I don't necessarily use her definitions in my own thoughts on ethics.

But do enlighten us with your definitions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Jade offered no definition.

Objective, there is a clear referent. Subjective, there is judgement or opinion involved.

I think it is best explained by example.

Which team is the better football team, for a season or for a game is subjective. Which team wins a game, has a better record, goes farther in the playoffs or has a higher final ranking is objective.

Note they are not completely divorced. The rankings are a subjective measure, but once tabulated the actual ranking is objective.

Note some people will say that the computer ranking as objective. This is incorrect. They are less apt to be biased or subject ot emotion. But the subjective element is there, it is just burried a bit deeper. The subjective decision was how to evaluate and weight things. (If the computer rankings were purely objective there could only be one).

In the sense that Christian morality has been codified it is objective, in the same sense that teh results of a poll are objective. But those codifying it made subjective calls in creating the code.

BUT it is no more objective in that sense than a moral code created by someone else.

EDIT: Often in usage people seem to think that subjective means emotional or gut feel. A subjective judgement can be rational and careful. If you were responding to that Idea I'm in agreement with what I think your intent might have been.

 

[mathclub]

Perhaps we can agree that, while there is objective morality, its implementation varies from person to person?

I do agree with that statement, however the fact that the implementation varies means it is, in a practical sense, actually subjective, if you see what I mean

 

[ziggy29]

In the sense that Christian morality has been codified it is objective, in the same sense that teh results of a poll are objective. But those codifying it made subjective calls in creating the code.

BUT it is no more objective in that sense than a moral code created by someone else.

I think this is a good way to put it. I do believe that Scripturally, there *is* a specific moral code. The problem is that those who put it into practice are imperfect, and that some of what is "generally accepted" as mainstream Christian morality may not be the *correct* way to interpret Scripture, and indeed, to our imperfect and differing minds and thought processes, it may not be the *only* way. But over the centuries it has been accepted as the "right way".

In other words, the Bible is an exact road map, but none of us know how to read every piece of it in its entirety to determine how to best get to our destination.

 

[AlexBP]

I guess it is objective in a theoretical sense, in terms of gods morality being objective. But practicality, it is not objective at all. It is just subjective, depending on how you want to interpret the bible. Objective morality is not found in the bible from what I can see, because it all depends on how you interpret it.

The moral teachings of Jesus are neither completely legalistic with no wiggle room, like those of the Prophet Mohammed, nor are they completely anarchic. They are intended not to tell us exactly what to do, but to inspire us to greatness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Jade offered no definition.

Jade's definition was implicit in her post. She was saying that people are always guided by their feelings, not by facts or logic, in determining what they believe to be ethically right or wrong. This makes morality "subjective" in the sense that it has no cognitive connection to reality.

My point is that, at least in my case, and I doubt I'm the only one, facts and logic can be the leading cause of one's ethical views. This means that ethical thought can have a cognitive connection to reality.

Objective, there is a clear referent. Subjective, there is judgement or opinion involved.

That is not the only understanding possible regarding the issue of "objective" versus "subjective". I'm not certain which philosopher you are invoking here, but there is a range of views.

Generally, subjectivism in ethics refers to subjectivism in meta-ethics. Subjectivist meta-ethics is a species of ethical cognitivism (which holds that moral statements are propositions), but it is an anti-realist position in that the truth of moral claims is mind-dependent.

Subjectivism in this sense doesn't mean simply that "judgment or opinion" is involved. It means that the truth of that judgment or opinion has nothing to do with anything external to human minds, but is dependent on mental contents alone for their truth value.

Metaethics - YouTube


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ziggy29]

The moral teachings of Jesus are neither completely legalistic with no wiggle room, like those of the Prophet Mohammed, nor are they completely anarchic. They are intended not to tell us exactly what to do, but to inspire us to greatness.

This is why I think people struggle with the balance of Law and Gospel. The Law, particularly in the Old Testament, is pretty blunt, pretty direct and not subject to much of this "wiggle room." Some people find comfort in this, and aren't comfortable with trying to reconcile (or temper) the Law with the teachings of Jesus. So in these cases, it feels like they let the Law win out because it's easier to consistently enforce a "thou shalt" or a "thou shalt not" than to read the Gospel and try to decide under which circumstances we need to partially back away from the Law when it seems to contradict what Gospel says.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Jade's definition was implicit in her post. She was saying that people are always guided by their feelings, not by facts or logic, in determining what they believe to be ethically right or wrong. This makes morality "subjective" in the sense that it has no cognitive connection to reality.

My point is that, at least in my case, and I doubt I'm the only one, facts and logic can be the leading cause of one's ethical views. This means that ethical thought can have a cognitive connection to reality.



That is not the only understanding possible regarding the issue of "objective" versus "subjective". I'm not certain which philosopher you are invoking here, but there is a range of views.

Generally, subjectivism in ethics refers to subjectivism in meta-ethics. Subjectivist meta-ethics is a species of ethical cognitivism (which holds that moral statements are propositions), but it is an anti-realist position in that the truth of moral claims is mind-dependent.

Subjectivism in this sense doesn't mean simply that "judgment or opinion" is involved. It means that the truth of that judgment or opinion has nothing to do with anything external to human minds, but is dependent on mental contents alone for their truth value.

eudaimonia,

Mark

If you're not a non-cognitivist, you're a stupid doody head.

THAT is an objective statement.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Absolutism is universalist objectivism. So moral statemets in this domain if they exist are true objectiveluy and at all times without variation due to context. So thou shalt not murder may be one such thing. I think that is may be justified for certain moral propositions but not all.

Apologia: God has a nature (spirit) which we may share in, hypothetically at least. There are certain objective facts about the axiology of spirit. Certain states are truly and unavoidably more valuable to it than others, and this is not voluntary but part of it's nature. So therefore if there are universally valid directives relating to the guardianship or production of positive states, or avoidance of negative ones, then they are by definition absolute (...objective and universal. Just as there is natural law, a subset of this may be spiritual or in secular ternms psychological-axiological law. Just as there are rules for stopping an object from toppling over and smashing. Seems a reasonable analogy.) As are any propositions that can be derived from them deductively. That's my attempt at an apologetic anyway.

 

[Shane Roach]

Video piracy is just a modern form of theft, theft is still theft, not complex at all.

This is both legally a false statement, and morally and ethically somewhat apropos for the board.

It is all well and good to say, "What would Jesus do?" is some sort of objective moral standard, but we do not have a crystal ball to consult on that question. What we have is the prompting of the Holy Spirit, if that, and sometimes even that can get complicated when you begin to discuss unethical government.

The Bible never says straight up that all morals are absolute. Indeed, for reasons the Bible neglects to make clear, David is given a pass on the death penalty for both adultery and murder.

I don't have a pat answer for anyone, but I have become increasingly weary of the idea that there is an objective "morality". Morality is a product of our thoughts, our conscience, our conscious awareness, spirit, souls, any number of possible things. But all of them share the trait of being subjective and not objective things.

 

[Shane Roach]

People forget what tree the apple came from in the Adam and Eve story, we as humans partook of the tree of Natural Law.

Heh.

I find this both cleverly insightful and a tad frightening in its misapplication.

The concept of natural law is one invented by man to explain the types of things pertaining to persistent cultural taboos you quite eloquently touch on, but to change the clear wording and meaning of the Bible to give absolute authority to this man made explanation, in my view, oversteps the bounds of good theology by leaps and bounds.

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't have a pat answer for anyone, but I have become increasingly weary of the idea that there is an objective "morality". Morality is a product of our thoughts, our conscience, our conscious awareness, spirit, souls, any number of possible things. But all of them share the trait of being subjective and not objective things.

My answer to the O.P. is that God's law can be made "objective" in the sense that He can communicate it to you. It is best summed up scripturally in my opinion here.

Rom 1:20-21

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse :

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
KJV

This is not apologetics, and for whatever reason that forum was withdrawn into the bowels of the site reserved for Christians, making it complicated indeed to perform any effective apologetics. Still, I will say that the unity of many of man's moral codes speak to some underlying cause for shared values, and the verse above is one way of explaining that. Obviously, there are other possible explanations....

 

[Yodeling Ice Maelstrom]

Jade's definition was implicit in her post. She was saying that people are always guided by their feelings, not by facts or logic, in determining what they believe to be ethically right or wrong. This makes morality "subjective" in the sense that it has no cognitive connection to reality.

My point is that, at least in my case, and I doubt I'm the only one, facts and logic can be the leading cause of one's ethical views. This means that ethical thought can have a cognitive connection to reality.

I understand morality in terms of that which God says specifically in his word is right and wrong. Now, He very well doesn't have to explain His reasoning to us, and I therefore try to understand God's morality in terms of logic.

The Bible is interpreted in diverse ways by all who read it, however God only intended one correct meaning, and this meaning can often be found by a study of the original language, and by comparison of the subject in other places in the Bible.

Apropos the apparent discord between the Old and New testament, I have this perspective: by Jesus giving his life for Adam and Eve, and rising anew to prove He was divine, He abolished some of the consequences of sin as set by God, that is death; the parts of the mosaic law that refer to capital punishment for any and all sins, or else animal sacrifice in substitution, have been superseded by the new law of Christ, that He offers free salvation to all mankind through His grace.

I think that the purpose God has for morality is to maintain the human population. Without morality as it stands, we would destroy ourselves, and therefore that which directly or indirectly causes death or a decay into anarchy, which causes death, is immoral. Without a human population to apply morality to, morality would not exist, if you see what I mean. I could be wrong about this though, it's just my own little thoughts. I really do wish I could know why God says things are right or wrong, even though it's beyond us humans. If I could just be privy to that info, I would be able to fight the temptation to sin with more vigor.