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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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
So why is "we own our own bodies" a moral principle, but" the use of nuclear weapons during war", not?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So why is "we own our own bodies" a moral principle, but" the use of nuclear weapons during war", not?
Having our own bodies is a fundamental fact. Animals have had a body since the first animals. Humans to the best of our knowledge have valued control of their own body for as long as we know.

Nuclear weapons are just the latest in a long line of technologies that have their own particular characteristics, effects, etc. 600 years ago the issue was crossbows, which the church tried to outlaw because of their devastating effectiveness. It would be silly to consider "crossbows are bad" (or, conversely, "crossbows are ok") as a fundamental moral principle. The matter of crossbows was a policy, debated in terms of facts, interests, and actual moral principles like the value of life.
 
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 there are outliers morality is not absolute. It might be objective but it is not absolute because it is not everywhere. That is what the word means.
No, you misunderstood. There are no outliers in morality, morality is objectively based and absolute. The outliers are the sinful human societies not obeying all of them.
 
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
Yeah we can always come up with moral examples where everybody agrees, but that isn't enough for it to be considered objective, objective requires everybody agree because it would be demonstrable.
It is demonstrable, it can be demonstrated that they match fairly closely the objective moral character of our Creator which is revealed in the Ten Commandments and other moral teachings of His word.



ken: Who decided the moral base is the moral character of God? Maybe I feel MY moral character should be the moral base. Or maybe someone else decided something else is the moral base for morality. Just because you see your God as the moral base doesn't mean everybody else will
But you did not create and design this universe with that morality in mind. It would be like you being a submarine engineer claiming that a certain car is also a submarine when it is actually a car created by an automobile engineer. Since you are not the automobile engineer, you cannot claim a purpose for something that you had no hand in designing.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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. There are consequence for stealing from the law which is penalties except if a person is not caught. The consequences of stealing for morals is the same. If you break the moral of not stealing and you are caught you will also face penalties. If the stealing is not a material thing such as stealing work time from your boss you will still face penalties if caught such as lose your job. If you avoid paying taxes you will face penalties from the inland revenue. So depsite people thinking that stealing is OK sometimes the consequences tell us it is not.

Laws are enforced, morality is not; big difference.

An exception is noramlly justification so it has to be something may lead to a greater harm for example. Any other reason despite being a persons view is really unjustified. 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. We have to say that it is unjustified and therefore immoral. In that sense subjective morality allows unjustified views to exist and be promoted which is dangerous. This shows that subjective morality is illogical.
Who decides what is justified, and what is not? Remember Hitler “justified” genocide against the Jews! And where are you getting this stuff? You read it from a book, or are you just making stuff up as you go along? ‘Cause if you just makin’ stuff up as you go along, thats subjective.

First off you don't have to show what the objective moral is to show that objective morals exist. The evidence is in the person appealing to it by claiming that something is right or wrong because that would need an objective moral to measure the subjective view against.
No, morality needs a base, if the base comes from the individual, that is subjective; if it comes from something everybody agree upon, it is objective.

Otherwise it the claim is empty becuase it has no basis. Secondly the moral objectives do not come from an individuals view or mind which will always change. It comes from beyond human views and minds. Some may say it is from God and others may say it is just in the universe or nature and just there.
Moral base comes from the Universe? Really!!! Admit it; all of this claim about morality being objective is just another way of saying your idea of God exists. In other words, you have no way of proving morality is objective unless you can first prove your God exist! Your God belief is based upon faith, not empirical evidence as your objective morality claims.

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 cultural practice can still be measured against these things.
What about blowing up abortion clinics in order to kill those who take innocent lives? What about suicide bombers who give their lives to kill the wicked? Are you sure there isn’t much difference between cultures? That everybody knows right vs wrong?

Despite anyones assessment of which individuals deserve 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 it is 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.

I think the way modern society looks at everything in monetary terms and everyone has to be accountable. The evolutionary thinking of survival of the fittest. But life is not like that. These modern ideals are perhaps part of the problem that produces people in need. 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. I guess the proof will be in the pudding when more and more suffer and a small group has all the money and power.
You keep talking about having a discussion about who is in need or not. Discussions are subjective. Objective means based on fact. What facts prove the rich should help the poor?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
If the person is the highest authority on what he should do, he is right according to him and all that agree with him; and he is never wrong; in his view unless he could be convinced otherwise. That is not meaningless to him.

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.
Objective means based on fact. Facts don’t allow for contextual differences. You keep saying objective, morality, but you keep describing subjective morality.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Having our own bodies is a fundamental fact. Animals have had a body since the first animals. Humans to the best of our knowledge have valued control of their own body for as long as we know.

Nuclear weapons are just the latest in a long line of technologies that have their own particular characteristics, effects, etc. 600 years ago the issue was crossbows, which the church tried to outlaw because of their devastating effectiveness. It would be silly to consider "crossbows are bad" (or, conversely, "crossbows are ok") as a fundamental moral principle. The matter of crossbows was a policy, debated in terms of facts, interests, and actual moral principles like the value of life.

First of all, not everybody agrees we own our own bodies; especially when it comes to the abortion issue, and your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins; so there area restrictions on what you can do with your body. Second; Nuclear weapons are just another tool of war; and tools of war have been around nearly as long as mankind. Just because those tools of war haven't been around as long as humans doesn't mean one is a principle and the other is not.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is demonstrable, it can be demonstrated that they match fairly closely the objective moral character of our Creator which is revealed in the Ten Commandments and other moral teachings of His word.
If morality were defined as obedience to the Christian God's will, I would agree that morality is objective; but its not.

But you did not create and design this universe with that morality in mind. It would be like you being a submarine engineer claiming that a certain car is also a submarine when it is actually a car created by an automobile engineer. Since you are not the automobile engineer, you cannot claim a purpose for something that you had no hand in designing.
Do you have proof that your God created the Universe with morality in mind? Or is this just another belief based on faith?
 
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
There is no such thing as "atheistic evolution". It is just evolution.
Atheistic evolution is an undirected process, theistic evolution is directed by God to produce humans.



belk: Evolution happens at a population level. There is no such thing as someone evolving to be more advanced.

I said societies which ARE populations. Actually since every individual is slightly different and evolution supposedly uses those differences to produce differential survival then yes an individual can be more highly evolved than another individual and produce children that inherit those traits and continue the process.


belk: I fail to see this being any different from special creation to evolution.
No, it is very different, see above.
 
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

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,994
Seattle
✟895,241.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Atheistic evolution is an undirected process, theistic evolution is directed by God to produce humans.

From our perspective both those scenarios look exactly the same.


I said societies which ARE populations.
The entire human race is the population unless some of us are sectioned off so evolutionary pressure creates two separate paths.

Actually since every individual is slightly different and evolution supposedly uses those differences to produce differential survival then yes an individual can be more highly evolved than another individual and produce children that inherit those traits and continue the process.

No, that is not how it works. There would have to be a separation of populations.

No, it is very different, see above.

No, they would look exactly the same from our perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If the person is the highest authority on what he should do, he is right according to him and all that agree with him;
It has nothing to do with "according to". He is right by default, period. The standard of "right" and "wrong" is purely a matter of him being "right" whenever he decides to do something. Others have no basis to even begin to judge whether he is right or wrong on anything he does, because he is the only authority on whether he is right or wrong.

and he is never wrong;
If he cannot be wrong, then he cannot be right either. If he can't be right, he can't be moral. Thus any sort of discussion of what people should do (i.e. morality) breaks down entirely; after all, he has already decided what he should do when he does something, and he cannot be wrong about this.

in his view unless he could be convinced otherwise. That is not meaningless to him.
On what grounds would you try to convince someone otherwise if everything he does is automatically right by definition? What exactly would you be appealing to? I mean, you can't argue that he "should" do something else, because he is the only authority on "should" for himself.


Objective means based on fact.
Not quite.

Take this statement: Redac likes strawberry ice cream. This is a fact, and I do like strawberry ice cream. Thus, the statement "Redac likes strawberry ice cream" is true. This does not mean that my taste in ice cream is objective. I am not referencing societal norms, or the opinions of others, or some external aspect of reality when I determine whether "I like strawberry ice cream" is a true statement. It is purely subjective, because I am the only authority on whether I like it. It's a fact, but it's also subjective.


Facts don’t allow for contextual differences.
Morally relevant aspects of the context of a given act can absolutely be important without making everything just a matter of opinion.


You keep saying objective, morality, but you keep describing subjective morality.
I'm not. What I mean when I say objective here is that: moral statements are propositions and thus either true or false; that some of these propositions are true; and that these propositions refer to facts that exist independent of human opinion.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Laws are enforced, morality is not; big difference.
So is the moral for stealing. What is the difference. Do you think that when someone breaks the moral not to steal they wont be presecuted or suffer some sort of repercussion. It is still an a breach of law and/or rules in society. It still has consequences even if you steal non material things or from family. I cannot think of any situation where stealing would have no consequences can you.

Who decides what is justified, and what is not? Remember Hitler “justified” genocide against the Jews!
Yes Hitler justified his actions. According to a subjective moral view Hitlers view is one view among many and therefore he has just as much right to have that view even if it is wrong and disgusting to others. No one can say Hitler was ultimately wrong because there is no absolute right and wrong to measure morals against. The rest of the world knew it was wrong and I suggest that they knew this not because of some human made criteria but it is intuitivly within all humans to know right from wrong. For me that comes from God but for others they say it comes from nature just like the laws of nature.

And where are you getting this stuff? You read it from a book, or are you just making stuff up as you go along? ‘Cause if you just makin’ stuff up as you go along, that's subjective.
I ain't that smart. I have researched the topic. I do not think you have to do any scientific test to know that what Hitler did was wrong. A justification for breaching a moral would have to support something good to be morally good. I do not think there are too many situations where people can rationalise a justification for bad. If we honestly look at the situation we can tell what is good.

No, morality needs a base, if the base comes from the individual, that is subjective; if it comes from something everybody agree upon, it is objective.
How can subjective morality have a base to measure it,that is more like objective morality. Objective morality does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that there are morals that stand as absolutely true despite whether humans agree or not. Sometimes humans can agree on a moral position subjectively and it later turns out to be wrong. So agreeing on morals alone is not objective morality.

Moral base comes from the Universe? Really!!! Admit it; all of this claim about morality being objective is just another way of saying your idea of God exists. In other words, you have no way of proving morality is objective unless you can first prove your God exist! Your God belief is based upon faith, not empirical evidence as your objective morality claims.
I think it is the other way around. People claim that some want to prove that there is objective morality as this would lead to there being a moral law giver which many say is God. But people also say that you can have objective morality without God. Sam Harris who is a famous athesist who often attacks religion supports objective morality.

Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that humans can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".[1]
The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia

It is commonly believed especially by those of religious faith that any form of secular morality is doomed to total cultural and moral relativism where morality is regarded as nothing more than a cultural byproduct and a matter of opinion. It always seemed obvious to me at least that morality was more than just a mere convention of culture and the purpose of this paper is to make the case that in the absence of god, a simple case for objective morality can be made.
A Case For Secular Morality: Objective Morality Without God

What about blowing up abortion clinics in order to kill those who take innocent lives? What about suicide bombers who give their lives to kill the wicked? Are you sure there isn’t much difference between cultures? That everybody knows right vs wrong?
I think many of the terror attacks on abortion clinics are done by westerners on their own people so they are not from a different culture. Most suicide bombers also blow up they own people who support them. So they are not indiscriminant acts which should tell you that they have no regard for life and there is no justification for what they do despite them saying it is in the name of their god. They are contradicting their own moral standards.

Just because people claim something does not mean they are morally justified. According to an objective moral position we can say their actions are morally wrong. The problem is there is no basis for those who support subjective morality to say these terrorists are ultimately wrong in their moral views. So their views have to be accommodated in the overall scheme of subjective morality. This is a dangerous position to take as it sends the wrong message to extremists.

You keep talking about having a discussion about who is in need or not. Discussions are subjective. Objective means based on fact. What facts prove the rich should help the poor?
You just told me earlier how unfair it was for rich people to help some poor because they have no obligation and the poor may not deserve it. If morals are subjective how is what you say have any basis or relevance. Why even protest it is unfair if you cannot make any statemnets about the criteria of what is fair and unfair.

I take the objective moral view that anyone who is in need is worthy of help even if they do not deserve it. Otherwise we are faced with a moral delimma of sorting out who deserves help or not and pushing someone away to perhaps die just becuase in our view they do not deserve it. I do not think many people could honestly do that and feel good about themselves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It has nothing to do with "according to". He is right by default, period. The standard of "right" and "wrong" is purely a matter of him being "right" whenever he decides to do something. Others have no basis to even begin to judge whether he is right or wrong on anything he does, because he is the only authority on whether he is right or wrong.
Lets look at this logic from your perspective where your God is the highest authority;

If your God is the highest authority of right and wrong, “right is whatever he tells you to do; others have no basis to even begin to judge because he is the only authority of right and wrong

Humm… sounds kinda the same to me; but the difference is; if a real person is the highest authority, I can have a conversation with him and convince him when I think he is wrong; and he is going to be more willing to listen because he doesn’t start from the position that he is perfect and could never be wrong unlike your idea of God

If he cannot be wrong, then he cannot be right either. If he can't be right, he can't be moral. Thus any sort of discussion of what people should do (i.e. morality) breaks down entirely; after all, he has already decided what he should do when he does something, and he cannot be wrong about this.
Lets try this with yours.

If your God cannot be wrong, then he cannot be right either. If he can’t be right, he can’t be moral. Thus any sort of discussion of what he says we should do breaks down entirely; after all he has already decided what we should do and he cannot be wrong about this

Again; kinda sounds the same to me, again the difference is a person can be reasoned with; your idea of God cannot. If your God tells you to murder your son as a sacrifice to him, that is right and you have no basis to refuse. If a person tells me to sacrifice my son to him, I would curse him and tell him why I will not.

On what grounds would you try to convince someone otherwise if everything he does is automatically right by definition? What exactly would you be appealing to? I mean, you can't argue that he "should" do something else, because he is the only authority on "should" for himself.
You are assuming if humans are the highest authority, that they would behave like God; they won’t. Humans believe they are right at any given time according to the data they’ve accumulated up until that day.
Of course, the next day new data may be discovered which could invalidate their previous beliefs. This is because people evolve day by day; your idea of God does not.
If I disagree with a person, I have the option of presenting new data that he has yet to discover, which could cause him to invalidate his previous beliefs. With your idea of God; I don’t have this option.

Not quite.

Take this statement: Redac likes strawberry ice cream. This is a fact, and I do like strawberry ice cream. Thus, the statement "Redac likes strawberry ice cream" is true. This does not mean that my taste in ice cream is objective. I am not referencing societal norms, or the opinions of others, or some external aspect of reality when I determine whether "I like strawberry ice cream" is a true statement. It is purely subjective, because I am the only authority on whether I like it. It's a fact, but it's also subjective.
Redac likes strawberry ice cream, is objective.
Strawberry ice cream taste better than all other flavors; is subjective. See the difference?

Morally relevant aspects of the context of a given act can absolutely be important without making everything just a matter of opinion.
I disagree; the moment you begin considering extenuating circumstances, differences in context, etc. before making a judgment, it is no longer based on fact. If it is not based on fact, it is no longer objective.

I'm not. What I mean when I say objective here is that: moral statements are propositions and thus either true or false; that some of these propositions are true; and that these propositions refer to facts that exist independent of human opinion.
I don’t believe morality is based on true or false It’s based on right or wrong.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
First of all, not everybody agrees we own our own bodies; especially when it comes to the abortion issue....
Its like everything I said went in one ear and out the other.

Owning your body is the moral principle.

Abortion is the policy in which all sort of other issues come into play including another moral principle: 'murder is bad for us', which in this case competes with owning your body.

And there's also disputed facts like the fetus is or isnt a "person". No wonder theres disagreement. Unlike the 2 main underlying moral principles at stake, abortion is a complex issue.
 
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

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Lets look at this logic from your perspective where your God is the highest authority;
You should probably be aware that I'm not a Christian.

If your God is the highest authority of right and wrong, “right is whatever he tells you to do; others have no basis to even begin to judge because he is the only authority of right and wrong
What you are articulating here is what's called the "divine command theory", which is actually a bit distinct from what I've been talking about. That's also technically a case of ethical subjectivism, wherein the rightness or wrongness of an act is not contingent upon whether it corresponds to some objective aspect of reality, but upon whether it conforms to what God has commanded.

Humm… sounds kinda the same to me; but the difference is; if a real person is the highest authority, I can have a conversation with him and convince him when I think he is wrong; and he is going to be more willing to listen because he doesn’t start from the position that he is perfect and could never be wrong unlike your idea of God
Again, you have already ceded that this other person, by definition, cannot be wrong. You cannot really think he is right or wrong in any moral sense, because you have already granted that he is the sole authority of what's right and wrong for him, and that your attitudes about his actions have literally zero bearing on that. Given that, on what basis do you even begin to justify your own belief that some other person is "wrong" in something they do, let alone convince him of such a thing? Trying to convince him that he's wrong would be like me trying to convince him that he actually does like strawberry ice cream.

Lets try this with yours.

If your God cannot be wrong, then he cannot be right either. If he can’t be right, he can’t be moral. Thus any sort of discussion of what he says we should do breaks down entirely; after all he has already decided what we should do and he cannot be wrong about this

Again; kinda sounds the same to me, again the difference is a person can be reasoned with; your idea of God cannot. If your God tells you to murder your son as a sacrifice to him, that is right and you have no basis to refuse. If a person tells me to sacrifice my son to him, I would curse him and tell him why I will not.
Yeah, and it has presented a bit of a quandry for Christian philosophers and theologists over the years. There are some answers to these sorts of issues that have been proposed, and a few others have simply accepted that, yes, cruelty would be moral if God commanded such a thing.

But as I said, I'm not a Christian, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.

You are assuming if humans are the highest authority, that they would behave like God; they won’t.
I don't think I've ever once articulated or even implied such a thing during this conversation.

Humans believe they are right at any given time according to the data they’ve accumulated up until that day.
Of course, the next day new data may be discovered which could invalidate their previous beliefs. This is because people evolve day by day; your idea of God does not.
The problem is that all that's happening (when taking into account everything previously mentioned) is someone changing their opinion on some thing, whatever that thing is. If I decide on Monday that I like band XYZ, then I'm over them by Friday, and then the following Wednesday I like them again, my opinion on each of those days is technically just as valid as any other day.

When you're talking about questions of "should" and of binding conduct, however, this presents a major problem. I think right now that, say, rape is immoral. If I decided to go out and rape someone tomorrow, however, then it would follow that, for at least as long as it was happening, I thought rape was acceptable, and I would be absolutely correct in saying that rape was acceptable. Do you not see the kind of problem this presents?

If I disagree with a person, I have the option of presenting new data that he has yet to discover, which could cause him to invalidate his previous beliefs. With your idea of God; I don’t have this option.
What data is going to invalidate my (obviously hypothetical) belief that rape is okay, or that handing over Jews to the Gestapo would be the moral thing to do?

Redac likes strawberry ice cream, is objective.
Strawberry ice cream taste better than all other flavors; is subjective. See the difference?
It's subjective in that the true/false value of "Redac likes strawberry ice cream" is not determined by anything external to my own opinion of the taste of strawberry ice cream.

I disagree; the moment you begin considering extenuating circumstances, differences in context, etc. before making a judgment, it is no longer based on fact. If it is not based on fact, it is no longer objective.
Suppose two moral statements: "cruelty is immoral" and "self-preservation is moral". Suppose for a moment that these statements are both true, and that they are true because they correspond with something beyond my own opinions.

Supposing those two moral truths, let's look at a particular action: killing. If we accept the above statements as true, and as being true regardless of the opinion of the person doing the killing -- that is, if we accept it as being objective -- then context suddenly becomes very important. Killing someone purely for the enjoyment or thrill of killing would be wrong, while killing such a person in order to save your own life would be just fine.

In such a case, you'd have some objective moral values derived from something beyond opinion or perception, and you'd have a moral system in which the exact context and circumstances of a specific action -- killing someone -- make a big difference in whether that killing was right or wrong. See how that can work?

I think you're confusing "real" or "objective" with "absolute". Moral absolutism would posit what you're saying here: that there is some ironclad moral law (for example, "stealing is wrong"), and that circumstance or context (for example, to avoid starvation or to help someone in need) has no impact on whether it's wrong or not. Wrong is wrong, period.

I don’t believe morality is based on true or false It’s based on right or wrong.
"Rape is wrong." Do you believe this statement can be true or false? And if so, is it true or false?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So is the moral for stealing. What is the difference. Do you think that when someone breaks the moral not to steal they wont be presecuted. It is still an offence. It still has consequences.
No; when the police arrest you for stealing, they will arrest you for breaking the LAW not some moral code. it’s just in this case the moral code and the law are the same.

Yes Hitler justified his actions. According to a subjective moral view Hitlers view is one view among many and therefore he has just as much right to have that view even if it is wrong and disgusting to others. No one can say Hitler was ultimately wrong because there is no absolute right and wrong to measure morals against. The rest of the world knew it was wrong and I suggest that they knew this not because of some human made criteria but it is intuitivly within all humans to know right from wrong. For me that comes from God but for others they say it comes from nature just like the laws of nature.
Actually a lot of people agreed with Hitler. How do you think he was able to get so many people to support his evil deeds? He couldn’t have done any of that stuff without help ya know!

I ain't that smart. I have researched the topic. I do not think you have to do any scientific test to know that what Hitler did was wrong. A justification for breaching a moral would have to support something good to be morally good. I do not think there are too many situations where people can rationalise a justification for bad. If we honestly look at the situation we can tell what is good.
People don’t have a consistent view of most issues when it comes to right and wrong. And why do you suppose what was viewed by most as right 150 years ago is viewed as wrong by most today? And what is viewed as right today, was viewed as wrong by most 150 years ago? If right and wrong is consistent, why is it in a constant state of change?

How can subjective morality have a base to measure it,that is more like objective morality. Objective morality does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that there are morals that stand as absolutely true despite whether humans agree or not. Sometimes humans can agree on a moral position subjectively and it later turns out to be wrong. So agreeing on morals alone is not objective morality.
If nobody agrees on them or know what they are, how do you know they exist?

I think it is the other way around. People claim that some want to prove that there is objective morality as this would lead to there being a moral law giver which many say is God. But people also say that you can have objective morality without God. Sam Harris who is a famous athesist who often attacks religion supports objective morality.

Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that humans can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".[1]
The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia
It is commonly believed especially by those of religious faith that any form of secular morality is doomed to total cultural and moral relativism where morality is regarded as nothing more than a cultural byproduct and a matter of opinion. It always seemed obvious to me at least that morality was more than just a mere convention of culture and the purpose of this paper is to make the case that in the absence of god, a simple case for objective morality can be made.
A Case For Secular Morality: Objective Morality Without God
Don’t know (or care) who Sam Harris is, but anybody can make the mistake of assuming a moral base for mankind exist outside of mankind; even atheists.

Just because people claim something does not mean they are morally justified.
If morality is objective, who decides what is morally justified?

It also does not mean we cannot say they are objectively wrong in their moral actions. The problem is there is not basis for those who support subjective morality to say these terrorists are wrong in their moral views. So they are accommodated in the overall scheme of subjective morality. This is dangerous and against valuing human life.
Again; I disagree! If I am my moral base, and I believe the terrorist are wrong, there is nothing stopping me from telling them. If this goes against their moral base, we can have a discussion to see who can convince the other

You just told me earlier how unfair it was for rich people to help some poor because they may not deserve it.
I was offering a scenario of what some people may believe
If morals are subjective how is what you say have any relevance. Why even protest it is unfair if we cannot make any statemnets about the criteria of what is fair and unfair.
Subjective morality doesn’t prevent you from making statements about such a criteria.

I take the objective moral view that anyone who is in need is worthy of help even if they do not deserve it.
And thats your subjective opinion! Just realize others have a different subjective opinion, and just because theirs is different than yours doesn’t automatically mean they are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Its like everything I said went in one ear and out the other.

Owning your body is the moral principle.

Abortion is the policy in which all sort of other issues come into play including another moral principle: 'murder is bad for us', which in this case competes with owning your body.

And there's also disputed facts like the fetus is or isnt a "person". No wonder theres disagreement. Unlike the 2 main underlying moral principles at stake, abortion is a complex issue.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. How are you defining "moral principles"?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Again, you have already ceded that this other person, by definition, cannot be wrong.
I have not.

You cannot really think he is right or wrong in any moral sense, because you have already granted that he is the sole authority of what's right and wrong for him,
But he also recognizes the possibility that he could be wrong, because he has been wrong many times before.

and that your attitudes about his actions have literally zero bearing on that. Given that, on what basis do you even begin to justify your own belief that some other person is "wrong" in something they do, let alone convince him of such a thing?
Perhaps by giving him information he hasn’t had before, or providing a point of view he never considered before. Remember, his idea of right/wrong is in a constant state of evolving; the more he learn the more his beliefs will change.

I don't think I've ever once articulated or even implied such a thing during this conversation.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you; I made this assumption based on the type of responses you’ve made.

The problem is that all that's happening (when taking into account everything previously mentioned) is someone changing their opinion on some thing, whatever that thing is. If I decide on Monday that I like band XYZ, then I'm over them by Friday, and then the following Wednesday I like them again, my opinion on each of those days is technically just as valid as any other day.

When you're talking about questions of "should" and of binding conduct, however, this presents a major problem. I think right now that, say, rape is immoral. If I decided to go out and rape someone tomorrow, however, then it would follow that, for at least as long as it was happening, I thought rape was acceptable, and I would be absolutely correct in saying that rape was acceptable. Do you not see the kind of problem this presents?
Yes! And these problems do happen! You are making my point.


What data is going to invalidate my (obviously hypothetical) belief that rape is okay, or that handing over Jews to the Gestapo would be the moral thing to do?
My reasons for believing forcing a sex act on someone is wrong, and my reasons for believing dishonesty to the Gestapo is the right thing to do

Suppose two moral statements: "cruelty is immoral" and "self-preservation is moral". Suppose for a moment that these statements are both true, and that they are true because they correspond with something beyond my own opinions.

Supposing those two moral truths, let's look at a particular action: killing. If we accept the above statements as true, and as being true regardless of the opinion of the person doing the killing -- that is, if we accept it as being objective -- then context suddenly becomes very important. Killing someone purely for the enjoyment or thrill of killing would be wrong, while killing such a person in order to save your own life would be just fine.

In such a case, you'd have some objective moral values derived from something beyond opinion or perception, and you'd have a moral system in which the exact context and circumstances of a specific action -- killing someone -- make a big difference in whether that killing was right or wrong. See how that can work?
Thats an awful lot of work just to sustain the false notion that morality is objective; if you recognized it is subjective, you wouldn’t have to jump through so many hoops.
I think you're confusing "real" or "objective" with "absolute". Moral absolutism would posit what you're saying here: that there is some ironclad moral law (for example, "stealing is wrong"), and that circumstance or context (for example, to avoid starvation or to help someone in need) has no impact on whether it's wrong or not. Wrong is wrong, period.
How do you define the difference between objective vs absolute?

"Rape is wrong." Do you believe this statement can be true or false? And if so, is it true or false?
Statements are true or false, morality is right or wrong, and statements about morality or any other subject are true or false
 
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
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No; when the police arrest you for stealing, they will arrest you for breaking the LAW not some moral code. it’s just in this case the moral code and the law are the same.
yes I agree, so in this case because the law and moral are the same does not that show how the moral for stealing is objective, if you say the law is objective. Is there ever a case where stealing will not be prosecutable by law or some rule similar to law that will have some sort of penalty like the law. Is there any situation where stealing whether by law or by morality is OK and does not result in some sort of penalty.

Actually a lot of people agreed with Hitler. How do you think he was able to get so many people to support his evil deeds? He couldn’t have done any of that stuff without help ya know!
Yes I agree and that's the danger of subjective morality as it allows people like Hitler to do what they do. Because there is no clear objective right or wrong no one can honestly say that this action is definitely wrong in any absolute way. It shows that even when a subjective view is supported by a large group, an organization or even a country it is not necessarily good. This has happened many times in history to a greater or lessor extent even from organizations people think are good.

Hitler was successful for several reasons and the Germans may have been fooled as well. People need to know the truth and all the facts to make an informed decision about what is right and wrong. We have often seen how certain views thought to be right can turn out to be wrong later.

People don’t have a consistent view of most issues when it comes to right and wrong. And why do you suppose what was viewed by most as right 150 years ago is viewed as wrong by most today? And what is viewed as right today, was viewed as wrong by most 150 years ago? If right and wrong is consistent, why is it in a constant state of change?
Just because it was OK years ago or even today does not mean it was morally right. You are assuming that just because it was acceptable it must have been ultimately right or good. I think there is also the context of that time which may add a different understanding and application of that moral. But that does not add a different moral meaning or view. Time and knowledge helps us have a better understanding.

For example 50 years ago people thought taking indigenous children from their family and putting them with white families was good as it helped them have a better life. Today this is seen as wrong as it was denying indigenous children the right to their parents who knew them best.

But they did not know this then and were doing what was regarded as good and in the best interest of the child. Today people will try and support the indigenous child to stay with their family in the best interest of the child. That does not change the moral of acting in the best interest of the child. The moral and peoples views have remained the same, the circumstance was the only thing that changed. People are not saying it is OK to treat indigenous children badly regardless of any time periods.

If nobody agrees on them or know what they are, how do you know they exist?
We know they exist because a logical argument can be made for objective morality such as how people act and appeal to objective morality despite saying there is no objective morality which I have been explaining through these posts. For example as soon as someone begins to say that their morality is right and another is wrong they are acknowledging that there is an objective moral standard that can determine what they claim. Otherwise why even make the claim as it has not basis.

Under subjective morality everyone's view is just as valid as the other. So there is no absolute right or wrong or good or bad. To say that someone else's moral view is wrong is to claim you have an objective morality to measure that persons morals against. Logical arguments can be used to determine what is true.

Here are some other reasons why objective morality may be correct.
Do Objective Moral Values Exist?
  1. Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no genetic benefit.
  2. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.
  3. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
  4. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
  5. Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.
Do Objective Moral Values Exist?

Don’t know (or care) who Sam Harris is, but anybody can make the mistake of assuming a moral base for mankind exist outside of mankind; even atheists.
The difference is Sam Harris is making a case that objective morality can be scientifically supported. There are a number of scientists who say the same and as with the survey I posted most academic philosophers support objective morality.

If morality is objective, who decides what is morally justified?
As mentioned people like Sam Harris say it is something within nature and that humans just know and have known all along. It is like the laws of physics, they have always been there and are part of life. So people intuitively know what is right and wrong. For Christians they believe in a moral lawgiver and as the bible says the laws of God are written on peoples hearts so this is similar to morals being a part of nature and people know them even if they have never seen or heard any morals before.

Again; I disagree! If I am my moral base, and I believe the terrorist are wrong, there is nothing stopping me from telling them. If this goes against their moral base, we can have a discussion to see who can convince the other.
Yes you can express your subjective moral view and so can the terrorists. The more difficult part is going to be winning the debate about whose morals are right as you have no basis to measure whose morals are right or wrong. So in that sense you can only have a conversation to express your opinion. You maybe right or the terrorist may be right who knows.

Subjective morality doesn’t prevent you from making statements about such a criteria.
I agree but it means nothing as far as the ultimate truth of whether you are right or wrong. It is just a statement of a persons opinion like "I think crumbed lambs brains are good to eat". It does not contain any truth about whether lambs brains are good or bad to eat.

And that's your subjective opinion! Just realize others have a different subjective opinion, and just because theirs is different than yours doesn’t automatically mean they are wrong.
Yes I realize this and that is part of the problem. It allows opinions that are dangerous and divisive that can lead to human suffering and death.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.