The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

Status
Not open for further replies.

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I suspect we are talking past each other a bit concerning morals vs morals and other considerations. Here is how I see it; morality is judgment we make about actions we experience.

If I see a person killing another, it is easy to say “killing is wrong” and deem the act immoral, and leave it a that. But then the question becomes; why did he kill that person? Did he kill a person who broke into his house to attack his family? How about if he was invited to the house, a fight ensued, and the home owner felt his life was in danger and killed the guest? How about if he wasn’t inside the home, but was on his property threatening to kill him? Where do you draw the line?

In the real world, most moral issues aren’t as cut and dry as killing is wrong, because there are other considerations that must be taken into account before judging the act good or bad, those considerations must be addressed BEFORE judging. Therefore you can’t claim killing as always wrong, because you gotta admit there are cases when killing is right.

Objective means based on observable and measurable facts

Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

and facts can be demonstrated as true. If killing were objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong in spite of those other considerations associated with the killing. It would also mean it could be demonstrated as wrong in all cases.

I know you are going to disagree, so tell me where I’ve gone wrong here.
It sounds like you deny there we hold moral principles at all and instead analyze every real life situation from-scratch, so to speak.

Is that your position on this?
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So if the year were 1938 in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo came to your door looking for Jews to send to the concentration camp, would you consider lying to the Gestapo in order to save lives wrong?
Would I lie there? Probably. But what I think wasn't really the point.

Because if lying is wrong independent of your individual perceptions and attitudes that the Gestapo is wrong, and the Jewish lives deserve to be saved, that would mean you would be wrong unless you told the truth. So would you consider it wrong to lie under those conditions?
Assuming some objective moral truth for a moment, my opinions on whether lying is moral or not, or when, or whether I even know what that truth might be, wouldn't alter whether it was true or not. This does not mean that context has to be irrelevant, though. One could posit, for example, that lying to save lives might be moral, while lying for personal gain or to harm others would be immoral.

If there is such a thing as the truth, but nobody knows the truth, or agree on it, how do you know it exist?
If one takes the realist position that the truth value of a moral statement corresponds with some external aspect of reality, then you'd assume it exists in the same way you assume an unsolved math problem has an actual solution.

Really, how far do you want to go with that sort skepticism? There are potential truths about the universe, about history, about all sorts of things we may never be able to determine or agree on. That does not necessarily imply that such truths therefore don't actually exist.

If it existed, don’t cha think somebody would have discovered it by now, and be able to demonstrate why it is the truth, for all to agree?
That doesn't really follow, no.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So what about the laws like to not kill and steal and the morals to not kill and steal. Are they not the same? Many laws are either directly the same as the moral or underpinned by the moral because originally that is how we determined what was right and wrong from our moral values.
When a law says “don’t steal” it is written down, and if any exceptions are intended, it is written down so everybody knows exactly what is meant by “don’t steal”.
When somebody says stealing is morally wrong, they have an idea in their mind what is meant, and though exceptions may be intended, those exceptions are based on personal perceptions and opinions, and each person who says this will have a different POV as to what exception is intended when it comes to stealing

Yes if you kill someone when protecting your family it is seen as an exception for not killing. That is because there is a greater moral involved which is as you said not protecting your family or innocents. It is a compromise for a specific situation which is not to kill. In fact the person who kills in self defence is often traumatised and needs therapy as they still feel guilty for taking another life even though it was justified which shows how the original moral wrong still has an impact on the situation.
So, where do you draw the line? If killing is an objective moral issue, whenever an exception is made, must be specific because when people decide when it is okay to kill, those exceptions become subjective. So; when is it okay to kill?

I thought I had already done that. Once again without even going into examples, the simple fact that people have subjective moral views implies that there must be an objective moral view that those subjective views are being measured against. Every time a person says in my view that action is morality correct and the other person view is wrong they are implying that there is an objective moral they are using to make that claim.
But that (as you call it) Objective moral view will change from person to person. How can you call something objective, when it changes from person to person?

If we are having to justify our actions, then we are admitting an objective moral fact. Therefore, the objective moral absolute is “It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper justification.”

Our own human experience confirms these truths. Regardless of geographic location, place in history or form of culture, it’s never been morally acceptable to kill or lie without proper justification. Humans have historically recognized these two objective moral absolutes; these principles transcend culture, location and history.
If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths? | Cold Case Christianity
But those justifications will vary from culture, to culture, from person to person. How can you call something like that objective?

No I don't think it is fair. All these examples have a moral underpinning. So is it fair for the rich to pay more taxes to help the poor. Yes, in other words is it morally right for those who are in a better position to help the needy. That is a basic moral that our societies live from ie the good Samaritan. It has only been compromised with the age of capitalism and neo-liberalisation which promotes individualism in being financially independent. But this policy has seen the growth of a small amount of rich and a larger and larger poor population who go without.

This is a good example of how money corrupts. Of course those with the money and especially liberal governments will say it is a good policy because it brings more wealth for all. But research has shown it does not work and in fact does the opposite. But subjective morality allows these types of corruptions and influences to dictate what is morally right and it is often the ones with the power and money that dominate what becomes morally acceptable in society.

If we believed that helping those in need was a moral objective it would trump all other views and be the guideline for how we live. I think money is one factor that can undermine all morals by corrupting peoples views.

You call that fair? What are you basing that off of? Your personal opinions and your subjective perceptions? Perhaps I think it is unfair? Why should I have to pay somebody else's way? Maybe they are poor because of the decisions they made; perhaps I have more because I made better choices in life. Why should I have to pay for somebody else who makes poor choices?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It sounds like you deny there we hold moral principles at all and instead analyze every real life situation from-scratch, so to speak.

Is that your position on this?
No; we hold moral principles, my point is because those moral principles are based on our beliefs, perceptions, and opinions, they are subjective moral principles; not objective.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Would I lie there? Probably. But what I think wasn't really the point.
Actually that was the point, because you decide when it is okay to break that moral law, and everybody will have a different POV of when it is okay to break the moral law. That is subjective

Assuming some objective moral truth for a moment, my opinions on whether lying is moral or not, or when, or whether I even know what that truth might be, wouldn't alter whether it was true or not. This does not mean that context has to be irrelevant, though. One could posit, for example, that lying to save lives might be moral, while lying for personal gain or to harm others would be immoral.
What other example could you posit it is okay to lie? What are you basing this off of? Your opinion?

If one takes the realist position that the truth value of a moral statement corresponds with some external aspect of reality, then you'd assume it exists in the same way you assume an unsolved math problem has an actual solution.
Math is objective, and we know the correct answer to all math equations. If there were something we didn’t know about, we wouldn’t be talking about it. (ex) nobody talked about calculus before the 17th century because it wasn’t discovered yet.

Really, how far do you want to go with that sort skepticism? There are potential truths about the universe, about history, about all sorts of things we may never be able to determine or agree on. That does not necessarily imply that such truths therefore don't actually exist.
We’re talking about moral behavior, not the details of the Universe.

That doesn't really follow, no.
IOW if morality were objective, it would be demonstrable, and someone would be able to demonstrate the truth.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No; we hold moral principles, my point is because those moral principles are based on our beliefs, perceptions, and opinions, they are subjective moral principles; not objective.
Then you should provide examples where people differ in significant numbers on pure moral principle.
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Actually that was the point, because you decide when it is okay to break that moral law, and everybody will have a different POV of when it is okay to break the moral law. That is subjective
That means everyone makes their own choices about how they will act; people not following a law doesn't mean a law doesn't exist. If your position is that all morality is purely subjective, and that what's right and wrong for any individual is determined by that individual alone... well, you can say that, but it's void of any kind of content.

What other example could you posit it is okay to lie?
Small white lies to avoid causing offense, I suppose.

What are you basing this off of? Your opinion?
I'm positing a hypothetical.

Math is objective,
Indeed. Math is an abstraction of certain underlying principles about reality.

and we know the correct answer to all math equations.
Unsolved math problems exist.

If there were something we didn’t know about, we wouldn’t be talking about it. (ex) nobody talked about calculus before the 17th century because it wasn’t discovered yet.
Well, some of the ideas had been talked about before. Still, did the principles about change and curves and so on (I was never great at calculus) not exist before calculus was invented, or was calculus studying, spelling out, and expanding upon certain truths about these concepts that exist external to our perceptions? It's an interesting question.

We’re talking about moral behavior, not the details of the Universe.
You were talking about truth, and appeared to be suggesting that we can't even know a given truth exists if we can't conclusively demonstrate that truth and find agreement on it. That sort of position applies to ideas of moral truth, but it has implications beyond just ethics.

IOW if morality were objective, it would be demonstrable, and someone would be able to demonstrate the truth.
Again, no, this does not follow. Inability to definitively demonstrate some given truth does not mean it therefore doesn't exist. Or do unsolved math problems not have definitive answers?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I was going to say abortion, but I'm not sure that qualifies.
Actually thats an excellent example.

Some moral positions ARE subjective or highly culturally conditioned, at least for a time, and especially where matters of fact are hotly disputed, such as: do we know if the fetus is a "person" or not.

The basic moral principles people fall back to on this issue are both essentially based in objective conditions of human living: 1. murder is bad for us. 2. control of our own bodies is fundamentally our own.

People typically dispute neither of those principles. Instead, the dispute here is about a question of fact.

Morals can only be based on objective facts where there are facts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If I believe in Santa and I define Santa as one who makes toys in the North Pole, the existence of toys will look like evidence of Santa to me, but it will not to you.

If you believe in God and you define God as the one who created the Universe, the existence of the Universe will look like evidence of God to you but it will not to me.

Ken
No, you are confused. I am not assuming the existence of God first, I am looking at the universe first and then come to the conclusion that He probably exists. You start by looking at the effect and then determine the cause. This is Science 101. You study the universe and its many characteristics and then determine what would cause those characteristics. Using your Santa analogy. If you actually found toys at the north pole and a toy shop with elves working in it and flying reindeer, then you would probably believe that maybe there is a Santa. So it is with the universe, there are so many things in the universe that point to a Creator with the exact characteristics of the Christian God that the most rational conclusion is that God exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Almost all the scientific evidence points to the universe being an effect, therefore according to logic it needs a cause.

ken: The cause being the singularity that expanded to become the Universe as we know it.

No, you are not going back far enough, what caused the singularity to expand according to orderly laws which plainly imply a Lawgiver?

ed: Since the universe contains purposes,

ken: Science does not claim the Universe contain purposes
Actually it does, just most scientists do not admit that they came from a Mind but rather just random processes which is impossible. Purposes can only come from an intelligent mind.

ed: ie such as eyes being for seeing and ears for hearing and we know that only personal intelligent beings have and create purposes,

ken: No we don’t know that; at least science doesn’t.

So you deny that eyes are for seeing and ears for hearing? All scientists agree that that is what they are for. Only the atheist scientists believe that they came from random impersonal irrational processes. Which goes against all of human experience.

ed: therefore the cause of the universe must be personal. Also we know that only persons can create the personal.

ken: Again; we don't know that.

Yes, we do. Can you provide an empirical example where persons came from impersonal processes?

ed: Since personal beings exist in the universe, then its cause is most likely a Person.

ken: All you’ve done is made a bunch of claims with nothing to back it up.
So you deny that humans (personal beings) exist?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Then you should provide examples where people differ in significant numbers on pure moral principle.
Are you kidding me? Did you want the whole list, or just the top 10?
1) Gay marriage
2) The use of Nuclear weapons during war
3) Legalizing Prostitution
4) Transgender restroom and facilities
5) Legalizing Marijuana
6) Homosexuality
7) Interracial relationships
8) inappropriate contentography
9) Abortion
10) Death penalty
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That means everyone makes their own choices about how they will act; people not following a law doesn't mean a law doesn't exist.
So if moral laws exist, where do they exist?

If your position is that all morality is purely subjective, and that what's right and wrong for any individual is determined by that individual alone... well, you can say that, but it's void of any kind of content.
Why is it void of any content?

I'm positing a hypothetical.
Is this hypothetical based on your opinion?

You were talking about truth, and appeared to be suggesting that we can't even know a given truth exists if we can't conclusively demonstrate that truth and find agreement on it. That sort of position applies to ideas of moral truth, but it has implications beyond just ethics.
Not quite; I’m saying what we call truth (in this context) doesn’t have an actual existence outside of human thought. Because it is based on human thought, different people will have different thoughts concerning what we call the truth

Again, no, this does not follow. Inability to definitively demonstrate some given truth does not mean it therefore doesn't exist. Or do unsolved math problems not have definitive answers?
With unsolved math problems, does everybody claim to know the right answer, but nobody agrees? (like morality)Or does everybody admit to not knowing the answer? (as with countless other things concerning reality)
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, you are confused. I am not assuming the existence of God first, I am looking at the universe first and then come to the conclusion that He probably exists. You start by looking at the effect and then determine the cause.
How do you know there is a cause to the Universe?

This is Science 101. You study the universe and its many characteristics and then determine what would cause those characteristics.
Why do you suppose the astronomers who study the Universe do not reach the same conclusions you do?

Using your Santa analogy. If you actually found toys at the north pole and a toy shop with elves working in it and flying reindeer, then you would probably believe that maybe there is a Santa.
And if you went into outer space and found your God out there doing stuff, then you would probably believe that maybe there is a God. The reality is; there has never been evidence of Santa in the North pole, and there has never been any evidence of your God anywhere

So it is with the universe, there are so many things in the universe that point to a Creator with the exact characteristics of the Christian God that the most rational conclusion is that God exists.
What things did you find in your study of the Universe that points to your God?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, you are not going back far enough, what caused the singularity to expand according to orderly laws which plainly imply a Lawgiver?

Nobody knows what caused the singularity to expand.

Actually it does, just most scientists do not admit that they came from a Mind but rather just random processes which is impossible. Purposes can only come from an intelligent mind.

Oh so now there is a conspiracy amongst scientists to suppress all evidence that leads to your idea of God?

So you deny that eyes are for seeing and ears for hearing? All scientists agree that that is what they are for.
No, I’m denying science claims the Universe has a purpose

Only the atheist scientists believe that they came from random impersonal irrational processes.
Well most scientist are atheists…..

Which goes against all of human experience.

Oh so if humans never experienced it, it’s impossible; right? Is this the what you are claiming?


Yes, we do. Can you provide an empirical example where persons came from impersonal processes?
So you are claiming that if we haven’t observed “X” happening, only “Y” therefore “X” is impossible. Is this the method to your madness?

I disagree! Observing “Y” happening is only evidence that Y happens it isn’t evidence that X is impossible
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When a law says “don’t steal” it is written down, and if any exceptions are intended, it is written down so everybody knows exactly what is meant by “don’t steal”.
When somebody says stealing is morally wrong, they have an idea in their mind what is meant, and though exceptions may be intended, those exceptions are based on personal perceptions and opinions, and each person who says this will have a different POV as to what exception is intended when it comes to stealing
The comparison of the law and morals for stealing is interesting as it shows how society can think of stealing objectively by the law yet see it differently through morals. Yet they are both pretty much the same when it comes to the consequences. If you break the moral of not stealing and you are caught you will also face penalties. So depsite people thinking that stealing is OK sometimes the consequences tell us it is not.

So, where do you draw the line? If killing is an objective moral issue, whenever an exception is made, must be specific because when people decide when it is okay to kill, those exceptions become subjective. So; when is it okay to kill?
An exception is noramlly a justification so it has to be something may lead to greater harm and not just fro the sake of someone thinking it is OK for no good reason. I think people know when something is justified or not and despite them insisting that it is ok it does not mean it is OK. In that sense subjective morality allows unjustified views to exist and be promoted which is dangerous. This shows that subjective morality is illogical.

But that (as you call it) Objective moral view will change from person to person. How can you call something objective, when it changes from person to person?
An objective moral wont change from person to person because it is not dependent on peoples views but something beyond the human mind.

But those justifications will vary from culture, to culture, from person to person. How can you call something like that objective?
I am not sure there is that much difference between cultures. I think everyone intuitively knows right from wrong, what is justifiable when it comes to breaching morals. Everyone knows the basic morals like being kind, helping those who are in need, not harming others regardless of culture. The moral can still be measured within cultural differences.

You call that fair? What are you basing that off of? Your personal opinions and your subjective perceptions? Perhaps I think it is unfair? Why should I have to pay somebody else's way? Maybe they are poor because of the decisions they made; perhaps I have more because I made better choices in life. Why should I have to pay for somebody else who makes poor choices?
Despite anyones assessment of which individuals deserves helping or not this does not change the basic moral to help the needy. You may want to have an assessment process to determine who should be helped but you are still using the basic moral of "it is good to help the needy" as the measure unless they are not justified in getting that help. But if they are not justified then they are not needy.

If they are not justified in your view but are still needy then this would put a person in a dilemma. You then have to justifiy that you have to turn your back on someone that despite the circumstances are still in need and by denying them help may cause greater harm. This is how I think morals are always pretty black and white. If we look at things honestly we will see that there are certain conclusions that cannot be denied and we all intuitively know this in the same way.

Modern society looks at everything in monetary and material terms and everyone has to be accountable. Evolutionary thinking of survival of the fittest forces us to look at thinks in purely biological terms. But life is not like that. These modern ideals are perhaps part of the problem. This is what is happening now with people being cast out because others have decided they do not deserve help and they just die. Any society that does this is doomed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So if moral laws exist, where do they exist?
That's the big question, ain't it? I'm not entirely sure if "law" is the best word to use here, as it suggests something more absolute than what I was getting at, but it is what it is.


Why is it void of any content?
When you're talking about morality, you're talking about the binding and directing of one's behavior. You're talking about questions of what a person should do. Subjective here means that the subject is the highest authority, or even the only authority. You are the authority on whether you like a certain kind of cheese or beer, for example.

What happens when you combine morality with the narrowest sort of subjectivism, as mentioned above, you end up at the conclusion that the subject is the highest authority on what he should do. In other words, the subject alone binds their conduct. This is something that the subject is always already doing whenever he decides on what it is he's doing. If the subject decides he should do something, regardless of what that something is, then he is right by default, because he's the highest authority on what he should do. He cannot be wrong, which of course means he cannot be right either, because if everything is right, then nothing is. If he cannot be right, he cannot be moral, and any question of morality becomes utterly meaningless.

Is this hypothetical based on your opinion?
It's a hypothetical wherein one might imagine an objective morality that allows for contextual differences in when lying may or may not be acceptable, since that was what was being talked about. I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

Not quite; I’m saying what we call truth (in this context) doesn’t have an actual existence outside of human thought.
In what sense do you mean? As in, any truth there is to be found is entirely constructed within our minds without reference to the world outside ourselves? Or in the same way that math, being an abstract representation of the relationships between various external aspects of reality, something which we invented, doesn't technically exist outside our heads?


With unsolved math problems, does everybody claim to know the right answer, but nobody agrees? (like morality)Or does everybody admit to not knowing the answer? (as with countless other things concerning reality)
It depends on the problem. With some, you'll get strong disagreements between mathematicians about what the correct answer might be. With others, there might be a problem and no one is quite sure what the solution is. There are also apparently problems where most people in the field will agree on what the answer probably is, but no one can actually prove it one way or another, so some doubt remains.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Are you kidding me? Did you want the whole list, or just the top 10?
1) Gay marriage
2) The use of Nuclear weapons during war
3) Legalizing Prostitution
4) Transgender restroom and facilities
5) Legalizing Marijuana
6) Homosexuality
7) Interracial relationships
8) inappropriate contentography
9) Abortion
10) Death penalty
Most of those arent moral principles.

Like your previous examples, they are policy questions in which moral principles are just one element among many others.

I would say Gay marriage comes closest to pure moral principle. And in that case I agree, its highly subjective. Like I said, some morals principles are subjective, at least until wisdom is accumulated that helps us comprehend the objective issues involved.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Most of those arent moral principles.

Like your previous examples, they are policy questions in which moral principles are just one element among many others.

I would say Gay marriage comes closest to pure moral principle. And in that case I agree, its highly subjective. Like I said, some morals principles are subjective, at least until wisdom is accumulated that helps us comprehend the objective issues involved.
How are you defining moral principles?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
How are you defining moral principles?
Dictionary dot com:
PRINCIPLE: "a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived"

I think we're good for "moral".

So for example:
Moral principle: we own our own bodies
Policy that may be judged by that principle among many other considerations: cannabis legalization
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.