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

[SPF]

I disagree. Even if God existed, morality is not based on his character; it’s based on the character of each person who holds a moral view.

Consider the following truth claim: “God exists”. That claim is going to be true or false independent of anyone’s personal beliefs. Our beliefs on that claim do not impact whether or not it is true. 100% of the world’s population could be atheist and it wouldn’t alter the reality of whether or not God exists.

Now let’s keep going. Let’s assume that God does exist. You’re struggling with this basic philosophical concept, and I still don’t have the patience to help you, but if God does exist, He is necessarily the greatest conceivable being.

If God does exist, then morality would stem from His character, because God would possesses the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong because the entire universe and everything in existence would be created by Him.

What people believe about God would have no impact upon morality. Morality, what is right and wrong, when determined by God, would necessarily be right and wrong independent of what anyone else believes.

So just like the truth claim: “God exists” is going to be true or false independent of what anyone believes, so the same is true for a moral standard IF God exists.

I would love for you to explain how if God existed and declared what is right and what is wrong that what is right and what is wrong could somehow be determined by us.

That would be like me telling my child that bedtime is 8pm, and then when 8pm comes around he let’s me know that bedtime is actually 10pm. Well no, he would be wrong. He doesn’t have the authority to change bedtime.

I also suspect you don’t have children, so that analogy may not be as obvious.

 

[Ken-1122]

Consider the following truth claim: “God exists”. That claim is going to be true or false independent of anyone’s personal beliefs. Our beliefs on that claim do not impact whether or not it is true. 100% of the world’s population could be atheist and it wouldn’t alter the reality of whether or not God exists.

Now let’s keep going. Let’s assume that God does exist. You’re struggling with this basic philosophical concept, and I still don’t have the patience to help you, but if God does exist, He is necessarily the greatest conceivable being.

It is arrogant and conceited to assume when you disagree with someone, that the struggle of disagreement results from their ignorance rather than your own. How about if we keep the arrogance and conceit to a minimum and focus on trying to understanding one another; agree?

If God does exist, then morality would stem from His character, because God would possesses the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong because the entire universe and everything in existence would be created by Him.

If we assume Yahweh created the Universe, and is the greatest possible being in existence, what gives him the authority to declare what is right or wrong? Is it just a matter of him giving himself this authority? Because I can do that! I can declare myself this authority, and because neither Yahweh nor myself enforces our authority, they will carry the same amount of weight. So who gives Yahweh this moral authority?

That would be like me telling my child that bedtime is 8pm, and then when 8pm comes around he let’s me know that bedtime is actually 10pm. Well no, he would be wrong. He doesn’t have the authority to change bedtime.
I also suspect you don’t have children, so that analogy may not be as obvious.

Do you give your child the freewill to go to bed whenever he wants? Or do you ENFORCE the 8pm bedtime curfew?

 

[SPF]

It is arrogant and conceited to assume when you disagree with someone, that the struggle of disagreement results from their ignorance rather than your own.

would you consider the parent who doesn’t take the time to explain to their 4 year old child that the light from the moon doesn’t come from the moon itself but is a reflection from the sun that they no longer see because the earth is rotating as arrogant and conceited?

If we assume Yahweh created the Universe, and is the greatest possible being in existence, what gives him the authority to declare what is right or wrong

The authority comes from the fact that He would be the only non-contingent being in the universe and that He created everything and that He possesses all the power in the universe. I mean if you want to talk about arrogant, it’s rather laughable to think that you, a created and finite being thinks you have the same authority as an omnipotent, eternal being to say what is objectively right and wrong. I find it hard to believe that you are actually that arrogant.

I can declare myself this authority, and because neither Yahweh nor myself enforces our authority, they will carry the same amount of weight.

Enforcement of law has no bearing on existence of law, and trying to equate the two would be a fallacy known as a categorical mistake.

And as for enforcement, In Christianity, the very reason Jesus suffered and died on the cross was for the very reason that all people are held accountable for their actions.

 

[Ken-1122]

would you consider the parent who doesn’t take the time to explain to their 4 year old child that the light from the moon doesn’t come from the moon itself but is a reflection from the sun that they no longer see because the earth is rotating as arrogant and conceited?

The parent in your scenario makes a claim backed up by proven facts. All of your claims are based on your faith, your beliefs, or your opinions; nothing you’ve presented thus far is based on facts. To speak of your beliefs, faith, or opinions as if they were facts is arrogant and conceited IMO.

The authority comes from the fact that He would be the only non-contingent being in the universe and that He created everything and that He possesses all the power in the universe.

To be the creator of all, posses unlimited power, and be non-contingent does not come with moral authority. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Enforcement of law has no bearing on existence of law

Yes it does! An unenforced law is equal to no law at all. If you disagree, demonstrate the difference.

 

[SPF]

To be the creator of all, posses unlimited power, and be non-contingent does not come with moral authority. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

So your position is that if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal being exists that this being does NOT possesses authority over existence which He has chosen to create? Really?

Yes it does! An unenforced law is equal to no law at all. If you disagree, demonstrate the difference.

The law exists regardless of whether or not it is enforced. Enforcement does not determine whether or not a law is on the books.

But that’s beside the point, it sounds like you’re attempting to say that God does not enforce His moral law. If that’s what you’re trying to say you would be wrong. Certainly in Christianity He is patient, but patience doesn’t equal non-enforcement.

 

[Ken-1122]

So your position is that if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal being exists that this being does NOT possesses authority over existence which He has chosen to create? Really?

You and your wife chose to create your children. But once they become of age, you nor your wife posses authority over them. Why should it be any different for Yahweh?

The law exists regardless of whether or not it is enforced. Enforcement does not determine whether or not a law is on the books.

We’re talking about Yahweh here; not Allah. Under Sharia law, Allah’s laws are on the books and are enforced; but none of Yahweh’s laws are on any legal books, nor are they enforced.

But that’s beside the point, it sounds like you’re attempting to say that God does not enforce His moral law. If that’s what you’re trying to say you would be wrong. Certainly in Christianity He is patient, but patience doesn’t equal non-enforcement.

In this case, what’s the difference?

 

[SPF]

none of Yahweh’s laws are on any legal books, nor are they enforced.

They are in Scripture. And again, if Scripture accurately portrays reality, then when everyone dies they will face judgment. Thus, the moral law is enforced by God.

You’re very quick to run off topic and not relate what you’re saying to the topic, it seems you just like to argue and not provide any content of your own.

If God exists and is a MGB, then morality stems from his immutable, perfect character. This would mean that what is right and wrong is objective because it is based upon the immutable, perfect character of an omnipotent being.

 

[Ken-1122]

They are in Scripture. And again, if Scripture accurately portrays reality, then when everyone dies they will face judgment. Thus, the moral law is enforced by God.

True. Whether scripture portrays reality or not is where we disagree.

If God exists and is a MGB, then morality stems from his immutable, perfect character. This would mean that what is right and wrong is objective because it is based upon the immutable, perfect character of an omnipotent being.

I believe morality only exists in the context of human thought. In other words; if there were no human thought, morality would not exist. I’ve got a feeling you see it differently; if so, please give your definition of morality, and how, or if it has an actual existence outside of human thought. Perhaps we can understand each other a little better if we clear this up.

 

[SPF]

I believe morality only exists in the context of human thought. In other words; if there were no human thought, morality would not exist. I’ve got a feeling you see it differently; if so, please give your definition of morality, and how, or if it has an actual existence outside of human thought. Perhaps we can understand each other a little better if we clear this up.

Whether I see it differently or not doesn’t matter. I’m not defending my personal belief, nor am I interested in refuting yours.

All I’ve been saying is that if there is no God, then morality is necessarily subjective because the standard for what is right and wrong would be determined by us, by you and me. And if man is the measure of what is right and wrong, then morality is necessarily subjective because no man possesses more inherent authority over another man.

But again, if there exists a MGB, then morality can be objective because morality would stem from his character.

That shouldn’t be controversial for any atheist or theist to agree with. What is controversial of course is whether or not God exists. But in principle, the logic is consistent and sound.

 

[Ken-1122]

Whether I see it differently or not doesn’t matter. I’m not defending my personal belief, nor am I interested in refuting yours.

All I’ve been saying is that if there is no God, then morality is necessarily subjective because the standard for what is right and wrong would be determined by us, by you and me. And if man is the measure of what is right and wrong, then morality is necessarily subjective because no man possesses more inherent authority over another man.

But again, if there exists a MGB, then morality can be objective because morality would stem from his character.

That shouldn’t be controversial for any atheist or theist to agree with. What is controversial of course is whether or not God exists. But in principle, the logic is consistent and sound.

And though I don’t agree with it, don’t get me wrong; I do understand the position you are taking. It’s just that; as I said before, I believe morality exist only in the context of human thought; IOW morality is strictly a human construct. You see morality as coming from, or based on Yahweh’s character if he exists. I think the problem is that I know morality exists, but I don’t see any evidence of Yahweh existing, so it would be too much of a leap for me to assume something I know exist coming from something I see no evidence of existing, if it exist. For me it would have to come from something else that I see evidence of existing in order for it to make sense.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It may not be based on some scientific theory but it is based on scientific and logical reasoning which is the most important thing. As a scientist you dont want some theory to cause you to reach a predetermined conclusion.

ken: My point is, the scientific community does not claim something existed prior to the Singularity that lead to the Big Bang; they do not know.

All they have to do is take one more step using the a basic law of logic called Causality. And as I posted earlier some do.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but their extrapolations have serious flaws such as systematic gaps in the fossil record. They should not be there if Macroevolution was true.

ken: Truth be told; I don’t know enough about Macroevolution to defend it or dispel it. But I realize there are scientists who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you or I and I am willing to take their word for it over yours.

Actually as a biologist who has studied evolution for over 35 years, I know just as much as many of the scientists that you are referencing.

ken: With that said; whether macroevolution is true or not, it has zero effect on my life. But whether your idea of God is real or not, it has a huge effect on my life so I hope you understand why I am a lot more critical on whether or not your God claims are true compared to if macroevolution is true.

Well most atheists try to make the argument that the "fact" of macroevolution proves that there is no God especially the Christian God. Though that is not true.

 

[Strathos]

Well most atheists try to make the argument that the "fact" of macroevolution proves that there is no God especially the Christian God. Though that is not true.

Who makes that argument?

 

[Ken-1122]

All they have to do is take one more step using the a basic law of logic called Causality. And as I posted earlier some do.

Well when those who do take that step take it, they are acting on faith, not science and they should make that distinction clear so there is no confusion concerning what they say.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You interpretation is still massively misunderstanding of what has been said. So evolution via natural selection has lead to certain behaviours and actions in a population a advantage. This in turn has lead those behaviours to be ingrained in the population of that species.

For instance humans being naturally caring about children, has given us a huge evolutionary advantage as a species - not necessarily as an individual.

There are many species that have almost no care for young and yet are even more "successful" than humans.

riv: So are natural evolutionary behaviour now forms the foundations of "our" morality. Our logic has then taken this and extends it - "Why do children need protecting" - "Because they are weaker than an adult" - extend further - "Well if an adult is weaker than other adults should we not protect them?" - leading to protections for the disabled.

So with a very limited view of objective morality you could say that due to these evolutionary made morality then morality is objective - we are hardwired to follow certain rules.

I personally would not call it objective, but I see why you could.

I will reply to the Nazi comment in a different post.

No, you are again misunderstanding my comments. Why is it good for humans to have evolutionary advantage than other species? If there is no God then humans are no more important than any other species so it is neither good or bad that humans have an evolutionary advantage. Because there is no such thing as actual morality because it is just based on sentimentality for your own species. That is not objective morality, it is based on subjective feelings.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It is a great conclusion that liberal Christians resulted in the Nazis coming to power, EXCEPT one small fact German pre-Nazi rule was anything but liberal.

Again I am not sure your definition of Liberal is the same as everyone else,

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

No, you are confusing liberal politics with liberal theology, I am referring to liberal theology. Which is the belief in the removal of the supernatural and removal of God's objective law from the Bible and Christianity. While there can be overlap with liberal politics such as in America, in other countries such as Germany liberal theology or basically a rejection of orthodox or biblical Christianity resulted in Fascist politics, fed by Germany's anger at the Treaty of Versailles and German Anti-semitism.

riv: Twisted Cross by Doris Bergen - explains how a section of German Christians throw out some old ideas from the old testament (which most Christians do anyhow), so under this narrow definition of "open to new ideas" then yes - but they are hardly accepting of different views and start a campaign of expelling now Aryan-ness from the both the bible (by re-interpretation) and kicking out non-Aryan members of the church.

It was more than just a section of German Christians, almost all the leadership in the protestant seminaries were theological liberals and they were churning out theological liberal students and in fact had been for close to a 100 years because theological liberalism originated in Germany in the 18th century and by the early 20th century the Catholic church was starting down the same path especially in relation to the OT. No, biblical Christians dont throw out the OT, but they do understand the bibllical teaching regarding the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant.

riv: The Germany that lead to the Nazi rule was exceptionally right wing and nationalistic and not liberal. I will give you that they were open to new ideas ... Well one and only one new idea!

I mean look at the Nazis now - have you ever heard of a self identifying Nazi who is also a social justice warrior?

See above how you are confusing liberal politics with liberal theology.

riv: The one thing I must give you respect for Ed1wolf is the fact you are one of the rare Christians who is not sticking his head in the ground and lying to him/herself about Nazi Germany was Atheist.
At least you are trying to understand how a very Christian German could have let this happen.

Actually Nazism is a form of humanism, just a narrower form, only Aryan humans are treated with respect all others are destroyed. And the liberal form of Christianity which has been shown by scholars such as Dr. Gresham Machen to actually not be Christianity at all, latched on to it because of their subjective and relative moral values combined with their Nationalism and anger about WWI. BTW, many of the Nazis including Hitler were Pantheists and not Christians as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. And Pantheism has the same problem about morality that liberal "Christians" do. Their morality is subjective and relative.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, not if His creation consists of free will beings which is what humans are, and most of them hate their Creator (some of them subconsciously) and therefore do not want to live according to His standards.

ken: Are you agreeing with me?

No, just because most people dont believe in or want to live according to an objective moral standard does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Answer this, if the ancestral species did not die out, would the new species still come into existence?

ken: Yes they would

How? Evolution requires there to be an opening in an ecological niche for a new species to come into existence, if the ancestral species which would occupy that niche does not die out then the new species would not have a niche to survive in.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If they did not and the new species would still appear then the planet would quickly become overcrowded and ALL life would die out and evolution would stop.

ken: Your scenario is not about evolution.

In what way? Evolution is about the origin, survival, and diversification of living things. How is my statement not about that?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, just because most people dont believe in or want to live according to an objective moral standard does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Actually judging by the way you seem to describe objective, everybody can have an objective moral standard; each a little different from the other, that they choose to live by.

How? Evolution requires there to be an opening in an ecological niche for a new species to come into existence, if the ancestral species which would occupy that niche does not die out then the new species would not have a niche to survive in.

After reading it again, I suspect I misunderstood your question. let me put it this way; if the ancestor species lives forever, and the new species are constantly dying out, the new species will probably never get a chance to develop, thus leaving you with only the species that never dies.

 

[Rivga]

many of the Nazis including Hitler were Pantheists and not Christians as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. And Pantheism has the same problem about morality that liberal "Christians" do. Their morality is subjective and relative.

Nope wrong again - Hitler and most Nazis believed that Jesus was Gods son, they change the nature of Jesus to be more of a warrior but he was Gods son. That is completely incompatible with Pantheism! After all Pantheist Gods don't go around having children, do they?

The Nazis did not believe that morality was subjective - they believed that it was cast in iron - their way or the high way. The words "Oh you may have a point there, let me go back to my Nazi party and discuss it" are not ones commonly heard around Nazis.

The very idea of an master race is inherently linked to God, as a conscious being, one race is superior to all the others as pre-defined by the creator.

Here is your biggest mistake - Dr. Gresham Machen talks about he came across German liberalism in academic circles, Not (here's the important bit) Not the general populace.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you determine what is good and what is bad?

ken: Empathy, logic, reason, extenuating circumstances, and a host of other tools and factors.

Hitler claimed to use all those same things to make his moral decisions, so why were his conclusions different from yours? And since you both use the same processes, what gives you the right to condemn his conclusions?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Exactly, your personal subjective judgement. You dont know this in an objectively real sense. And this is true of the writer of the article you posted.

ken: The article I posted was to only show that you don’t have to believe in God to believe morality is objective; yeah atheists can be wrong too!

If they think that their morality is objective then they definitely ARE wrong.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know they are innocent? And what are they innocent of? Not doing things that you personally subjectively believe are wrong?

ken: Yes.

Ok then you have no objectively rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So are you saying that humans operate outside of natural selection? I thought you believe that humans evolve too?

ken: You do know the difference between Evolution vs Natural Selection; do you?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-evolution-and-natural-selection

Of course, natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and most scientists agree it operates on humans AND animals and is still in operation causing us to evolve. So you deny this?

 

[Ken-1122]

Hitler claimed to use all those same things to make his moral decisions, so why were his conclusions different from yours?

Because his logic, reason, and empathy is different than mine.

And since you both use the same processes, what gives you the right to condemn his conclusions?

Just as he has a right to disagree with me, I have a right to disagree with him.

If they think that their morality is objective then they definitely ARE wrong.

I agree! But then so are you. The problem is; neither of you know it! You all think that you and those who think like you are the only ones with a basis for objective morality.

Ok then you have no objectively rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.

Of course not! I have a subjective rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.

Of course, natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and most scientists agree it operates on humans AND animals and is still in operation causing us to evolve. So you deny this?

Can you give an example of natural selection that is being applied to humans?