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

[Ken-1122]

according to this theory morality is not based on whether a person breaks those rules or not but upon the rules hence the term "natural law". it's basically saying that people are not moral because they break those rules which makes society a worse place than it otherwise would be.

I’m not talking about people breaking the law, I’m talking about situations where the law is wrong. Take lying for example; if you say to lie is objectively wrong, would it have also been wrong to lie to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany to save the lives of a Jewish family hiding in your attic? Take rape for example. Rape is a legal term meaning non consensual sex. So if a 17 year old person is married, and goes to the State of California where the age of consent is 18, that person having sex with their spouse would be an act of rape because they aren't old enough to give consent.

so the judgment of this theory is that a person saying morality is subjective is a person using their subjectivity as an excuse for their evil behavior if their subjectivity disagrees with the basic laws laid out.

Do you see the above examples as an excuse for evil behavior?

ofc the system is a little bit more complex. for instance self defense is not murder or assault because self defense occurs when someone violates one of those rules against the defender.

What one person calls self defense, another person will call murder. How can you call that objective?

 

[Noxot]

I’m not talking about people breaking the law, I’m talking about situations where the law is wrong. Take lying for example; if you say to lie is objectively wrong, would it have also been wrong to lie to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany to save the lives of a Jewish family hiding in your attic? Take rape for example. Rape is a legal term meaning non consensual sex. So if a 17 year old person is married, and goes to the State of California where the age of consent is 18, that person having sex with their spouse would be an act of rape because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Do you see the above examples as an excuse for evil behavior?

What one person calls self defense, another person will call murder. How can you call that objective?

the natural law is basically "don't do actions that harm others". but there is a big difference in murder and killing someone. if I shoot someone for trying to rape me then I killed them, I did not murder them. if someone raped me then killed me, they murdered me because they harmed an innocent.

the natural law is a starting point. it's simple in part to protect people from being enslaved by evil people who make up laws to use as tools of coercion to dominate others. many of mans laws and ways break natural law.

lying is only evil if it causes harm to innocent people because natural law is about not harming innocents and treating them as equals. saving someone with lies from people that break the natural law is good. rape in natural law terms is coercive sex.

the proof of natural laws objectivity is that breaking them makes life worse in some way. unless you really think that someone breaking into your house and pointing a gun at your head and who then beats you up and rapes you then steals your wallet are "better". but if you did you would be called insane.

 

[Ken-1122]

the natural law is basically "don't do actions that harm others". but there is a big difference in murder and killing someone. if I shoot someone for trying to rape me then I killed them, I did not murder them. if someone raped me then killed me, they murdered me because they harmed an innocent.

How about if you shoot an unarmed person who was on your property because you were afraid they might steal from you? Is that murder? How about if they were bigger than you and you were afraid they might harm you with their bare hands? Where do you draw the line; who decides when it is okay to kill? You the moment you choose to pull the trigger?

the natural law is a starting point. it's simple in part to protect people from being enslaved by evil people who make up laws to use as tools of coercion to dominate others. many of mans laws and ways break natural law.

lying is only evil if it causes harm to innocent people because natural law is about not harming innocents and treating them as equals. saving someone with lies from people that break the natural law is good.

If lying were objectively wrong, it would be wrong no matter who would be hurt by the truth. It is a contradiction to say lying is objectively wrong, but it is okay to lie under specific conditions.

the proof of natural laws objectivity is that breaking them makes life worse in some way.

And who decides when life has been made worse in some way? If something is objectively true/right, it can be demonstrated as true/right.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Sorry I dont have time to go back and find it. Explain yourself.

ken: My point is; I don’t believe evolution requires death; it requires birth. When a random mutant is born, that’s what starts evolution. IOW it’s about birth, not death.

I am not denying that it doesn't require birth, but it also requires death as I have proven earlier. The mutants will immediately die out if the non-mutants dont die out. The whole concept of "survival of the fittest"(which is actually a tautology) is meaningless without death.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the resources are limited so there is still competition over resources even space if nothing dies. Eventually there is no more space for the mutants, whether they die or not.

ken: None of that matters; as long as random mutants are born, you have evolution.

No, see above about survival of the fittest.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes you did, read your post number 945. In your article you posted about evolution in medicine it refers to bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

ken: The examples I gave in post# 945, the genetic structure changed; thus evolution not adaption.

No, they were still the same species of bacteria.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, their genetic structure DOES change and yet they are still bacteria.

ken: Yes! When the genetic structure changes, even though they are still bacteria, evolution has still taken place.

Not macroevolution. If this had happened 2 bya ago, humans would not have come into existence because no progress in evolution would have been made. We would all still be bacteria.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He was the perfect representative chosen by our perfect Creator and Judge. Sounds fair to me.

ken: If they were perfect, they wouldn’t have failed. He should have made us perfect so we could represent ourselves.

Actually you are correct, they were not perfect in that sense. Genesis says they were very good, which means that they were perfect for God's plan to destroy evil forever. Everything centers around that plan. Even humans were not the center of God's plan, destroying evil was and is.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But all the beings in heaven are spiritually mature, that is not the case on earth. Humans on earth have to go thru the teaching and learning process (living a life following Christ) to become spiritually mature enough and then they can enter heaven. This is what eventually destroys evil forever. Because those who choose not to go thru the process keep evil alive on earth and when they die are not allowed in heaven.

ken: Most Christians realize they never become perfect. This means they are constantly sining on a regular basis until they die. If they never become spiritually mature (sinless) while here on Earth, what makes you think they will all of a sudden become sinless in Heaven?

Christians never become perfect in this world, but over time as they mature spiritually they sin LESS. This is what is called Sanctification. The Holy spirit thru time and experience purifies us and we sin less often as we mature. So that by the time we die, death finishes up the job and we become like Christ, sinless ie without sin.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But that is not what Darwin was saying and doing. He was claiming with his theory of evolution and mechanism of natural selection that the system and, using your analogy, the cars designed and assembled themselves naturally. Sometimes his writings mentioned a deist type creator getting things started but not really like the Christian God, who created a universe that points to His existence.

st: Because God's intervention in nature is, for the most part, undetectable by science. And that makes sense, as God is not subject to the laws of science.

I am not sure what you are calling the laws of science. Are you equating that with the laws of physics? If so, the Bible and science itself appears to say otherwise. Romans 1:20 which I quoted earlier seems to say that His existence is quite detectable by empirical observation. And even some of His miracles are detectable such as the Big bang which science has admitted goes against the laws of physics, ie they break down at the very beginning. Also, the resurrection of Christ was obviously physical and empirically observed and detectable at the time. You are right that God is not subject to laws of science or physics but He uses the regularity of those to show when He directly intervenes it is obvious in a background of regularity. His intervention is extremely rare, the bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and the number of miracles are very small. 99.9% of the time He uses natural law to operate the world.

 

[Strathos]

I am not sure what you are calling the laws of science. Are you equating that with the laws of physics? If so, the Bible and science itself appears to say otherwise. Romans 1:20 which I quoted earlier seems to say that His existence is quite detectable by empirical observation. And even some of His miracles are detectable such as the Big bang which science has admitted goes against the laws of physics, ie they break down at the very beginning. Also, the resurrection of Christ was obviously physical and empirically observed and detectable at the time. You are right that God is not subject to laws of science or physics but He uses the regularity of those to show when He directly intervenes it is obvious in a background of regularity. His intervention is extremely rare, the bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and the number of miracles are very small. 99.9% of the time He uses natural law to operate the world.

I agree, but I think the problem is that we disagree on the specifics of what falls into each category.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not denying that it doesn't require birth, but it also requires death as I have proven earlier. The mutants will immediately die out if the non-mutants dont die out. The whole concept of "survival of the fittest"(which is actually a tautology) is meaningless without death.

Reality requires birth and death. What’s your point? And don't take this reply as an agreement with you that evolution requires death, because it doesn't; and you haven't shown that it does! I'm just trying to find out where this part of the conversation is going.

No, see above about survival of the fittest.

Your above scenario is about nothing ever dying; there is no survival of the fittest under such a scenario.

No, they were still the same species of bacteria.

Were you there participating in the study? No. The people who were there participating in the study claimed the genetic structure changed. Who are you to say different?

Not macroevolution. If this had happened 2 bya ago, humans would not have come into existence because no progress in evolution would have been made. We would all still be bacteria.

I didn’t say anything about macroevolution or billions of years ago; I said evolution.

Actually you are correct, they were not perfect in that sense. Genesis says they were very good, which means that they were perfect for God's plan to destroy evil forever. Everything centers around that plan. Even humans were not the center of God's plan, destroying evil was and is.

Where in the Bible does it say God’s creation of humans was a part of his plan to destroy evil?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok, but that is still not subjective. One person may be objectively faster, smarter, slower, etc.

ken: Their ability may be objective, but the question at hand is about the most logical way to get from point A to point B, and because the answer varies from person to person depending on their ability; the answer is not objective.

No, I am talking about the laws of logic. The laws of logic are objective. They are a tool like a hammer. If you use the right tools for a certain task then you will complete the task. For example if you want to put a nail into a piece of wood then you should use a hammer. So it is with logic if you use logic correctly then you will most likely come to the right answer. It doesn't quarantee the right answer but the probability is very high that you will come to the right answer.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I didn't say dinosaurs can reason, I said they operate according to the laws of logic even when no humans existed. Two T. Rexes cannot occupy the same space, at the same time, or in the same relationship. IOW the law of non-contradiction was valid 65 mya just like today when humans exist. So plainly logic existed before human minds did.

ken: So you see the law of non-contradiction as a law of logic?

Yes and so do all philosophers including Aristotle one of the greatest.

ken: I agree logic can be applied to that law, but then logic can be applied to laws of science, physics, even math! Do you see those as laws of logic as well? Perhaps this is something we will have to agree to disagree on.

No, the laws of science and physics are not laws of logic, though if they are correct then they ARE logical. That is how the laws of physics were discovered by using logic. Now math IS a form of laws of logic.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, again you are misunderstanding what objective and subjective mean. God's moral character exists outside of human minds so therefore is objective to humans. Human morality is subjective because they only exist in other humans minds. Now do you understand?

ken: Humans have nothing to do with this, we’re talking about Morality and God.

Yes, humans have plenty to do with it, only Humans and God are free will moral beings.

ken: If morality is objective, that means it applies to God the same way as anything else. Just because God and humans are different, or God and animals are different, or God and (fill in the blank) are different, doesn’t mean an exception can be made for God that aren’t made for everything else.

Yes, it does. God CREATED everything else including humans. He can determine what their goals are and what is best for them and He knows what is best for them and that is to live their lives according to His moral laws which are based on His objective moral character.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
For example, there is only one ALL knowledge, there are not multiple all knowledges so only one being can have all knowledge.
ken: How do you know there is only one ALL knowledge?

Because all the evidence points to there being only one universe which is all things that exist.

 

[cvanwey]

only Humans and God are free will moral beings.

Yes, it does. God CREATED everything else including humans. He can determine what their goals are and what is best for them and He knows what is best for them and that is to live their lives according to His moral laws which are based on His objective moral character.

Because all the evidence points to there being only one universe which is all things that exist.

If I may add my 2 cents...

According to the 'laws of logic' and it's possible varying degrees and definitions, you appeared to be doing so well, right up until the point of the attached statements listed above....

The above statements do not appear to logically conclude, but instead represent informal fallacies of sorts.

First and foremost, have you not considered that more than one possible 'creator' agent is even possible?

Have you not considered that maybe more than one 'creator' agent could exist?

Have you not considered that such an agent may not be perfect?

Have you not considered that maybe this agent is not even around any longer?

Have you not considered that the 'universe' is/was eternal? Meaning, never was there a point, necessity, or requirement/need for a 'first cause agent'?

Have you not studied or considered the fact that other earth mammals possess awareness and appear to demonstrate consciousness?

etc etc etc......

*****************

Aside from only the beginning unanswered and unverified questions above, it appears quite presumptuous to just assert your conclusion regarding morals and a God.

Thanks

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, humans have plenty to do with it, only Humans and God are free will moral beings.

But we're talking about God and morality only; not humans. Besides; how do you know beasts of the field and insects aren’t moral agents as well?

Yes, it does. God CREATED everything else including humans. He can determine what their goals are and what is best for them and He knows what is best for them and that is to live their lives according to His moral laws which are based on His objective moral character.

Creating everything doesn’t mean you get to be the moral dictator.

Because all the evidence points to there being only one universe which is all things that exist.

One universe doesn’t mean there is only one all knowledge, and it doesn’t mean there is such a thing as an all knowledge. One has nothing to do with the other

 

[buck1hunter]

Objectively speaking you have to define evil for evil to exist. I think Evil exists because pain and suffering exists.. Even a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (a person who derives pleasure from pain) will have an experience that's undesirable and they would say this is an experience of pain and suffering. All the Evil that exists in this world exists because of some form of pain and suffering.

In this sense it's pretty clear to me that Evil is another word for pain and suffering. The opposite of pain and suffering is Good. People who do Good in this world don't create pain and suffering for each other. This is why God created a set of rules or guidelines we should follow. He created them so we can escape pain and suffering (evil) together.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I agree, but I think the problem is that we disagree on the specifics of what falls into each category.

I am not sure what categories you are referring to.

 

[Ken-1122]

Objectively speaking you have to define evil for evil to exist.

The problem is, you can ask 100 people and get 100 different answers as to what evil is. That’s what makes it subjective; not objective.

In this sense it's pretty clear to me that Evil is another word for pain and suffering. .

that may be your definition of evil; but many will disagree; myself included. I know many athletes who will tell you that pain and suffering is just a part of getting into shape for competition; and they don’t consider such training evil. That’s one of the reasons I call evil subjective not objective.

 

[buck1hunter]

The problem is, you can ask 100 people and get 100 different answers as to what evil is. That’s what makes it subjective; not objective.

that may be your definition of evil; but many will disagree; myself included. I know many athletes who will tell you that pain and suffering is just a part of getting into shape for competition; and they don’t consider such training evil. That’s one of the reasons I call evil subjective not objective.

Well what do you think is pure evil and why? Does it not create pain and suffering? Furthermore, I made a comment about masochists. The athletes you mentioned fall into this category. Sure they accept the pain and suffering they feel during training because it makes them better at what they do. They feel good about themselves when they train. It's a form of masochism because completing training that makes you better than other people feeds your ego. Now, I'm sure those same athletes would say a career ending injury is horrible. That would be evil because horrible can be defined as evil. After all it is a synonym for the word evil.

I'm not telling you what to believe. I think evil is pain and suffering. It's pretty easy to come to that conclusion when every bad thing that happens creates this in some form or fashion. A little bit of critical thinking on the topic would reveal this. Sure experience is subjective but I'm saying people are talking about the same thing when it comes to evil.

 

[Strathos]

I am not sure what categories you are referring to.

The categories of supernatural miracles directly performed by God and the categories of natural processes following rules created by God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well what do you think is pure evil and why?

I see evil as a verb; not a noun. What we call evil is a label we attach to things we consider very very bad. Just like beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid; such labels don’t have an actual existence outside of human thought.

Does it not create pain and suffering?

Sometimes it can.

, I made a comment about masochists. The athletes you mentioned fall into this category.

I disagree; Masochists get sexual gratification from pain, Athletes put their bodies through pain in order to get into the type of shape they want to be in for competition; no sexual gratification involved.

I'm not telling you what to believe. I think evil is pain and suffering. It's pretty easy to come to that conclusion when every bad thing that happens creates this in some form or fashion.

So every bad thing that happens creates pain and suffering in some form or fashion? Explain the pain and suffering that results from cheating on a math quiz?

A little bit of critical thinking on the topic would reveal this. Sure experience is subjective but I'm saying people are talking about the same thing when it comes to evil.

What people consider bad is subjective. Is marrying outside your race bad? Is sex before marriage bad? How about sex with someone of the same sex? Is drinking alcohol to the point of intoxication? I could list a hundred things that people disagree on if it is bad or not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not denying that it doesn't require birth, but it also requires death as I have proven earlier. The mutants will immediately die out if the non-mutants dont die out. The whole concept of "survival of the fittest"(which is actually a tautology) is meaningless without death.

ken: Reality requires birth and death. What’s your point? And don't take this reply as an agreement with you that evolution requires death, because it doesn't; and you haven't shown that it does! I'm just trying to find out where this part of the conversation is going.

I believe so, otherwise survival of the fittest means nothing. If something doesn't die and something else doesn't survive how can evolution occur? My point is that if evolution is true then death is actually a good thing.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, see above about survival of the fittest.

ken: Your above scenario is about nothing ever dying; there is no survival of the fittest under such a scenario.

No, my scenario above was about supposedly what happens if evolution is true in the real world where death occurs.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they were still the same species of bacteria.

ken: Were you there participating in the study? No. The people who were there participating in the study claimed the genetic structure changed. Who are you to say different?

No, but all evolutionists use the same scenario to try to prove evolution. Genetic structure can change without causing the organism to turn into another organism. A human with Downs syndrome which is a genetic structure change, is still a human. Right?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not macroevolution. If this had happened 2 bya ago, humans would not have come into existence because no progress in evolution would have been made. We would all still be bacteria.
ken: I didn’t say anything about macroevolution.

I did, that is what this whole discussion is about. I dont believe it occurs, you and Darwin do.

Where in the Bible does it say God’s creation of humans was a part of his plan to destroy evil?

Romans 8:22-25. Revelation 20:11-15. Revelation 21:4.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe so, otherwise survival of the fittest means nothing. If something doesn't die and something else doesn't survive how can evolution occur? My point is that if evolution is true then death is actually a good thing.

I've explained over and over how even if nothing died, evolution would still take place. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

No, my scenario above was about supposedly what happens if evolution is true in the real world where death occurs.

The reality is, evolution is true, and death does occur.

No, but all evolutionists use the same scenario to try to prove evolution. Genetic structure can change without causing the organism to turn into another organism. A human with Downs syndrome which is a genetic structure change, is still a human. Right?

News Flash!!! An organism does not have to change into another organism in order for evolution to take place

 

[Ed1wolf]

If I may add my 2 cents...

According to the 'laws of logic' and it's possible varying degrees and definitions, you appeared to be doing so well, right up until the point of the attached statements listed above....

The above statements do not appear to logically conclude, but instead represent informal fallacies of sorts.

In what way?

cv: First and foremost, have you not considered that more than one possible 'creator' agent is even possible?

It is possible but the evidence points toward only one creator. Sinec there is only one major effect, ie the universe, then most likely using Occam's Razor there is only one Cause. Also, given how living things are all based on one primary blueprint, DNA, and they show similar body plans with designs coming off similar based body plans, that points to one Designer. And there are other things that point to only One Creator.

cv: Have you not considered that maybe more than one 'creator' agent could exist?

See above.

cv: Have you not considered that such an agent may not be perfect?

You are correct, just looking at nature you may not realize that He is perfect. We only learn that later when we accept His written message to us.

cv: Have you not considered that maybe this agent is not even around any longer?

That is a possibility though the evidence is against it, since the law of causality shows that the cause of the universe must be "outside" time. The cause cannot be part of the effect and time is part of the effect, ie the universe. So most likely the cause is eternal according to logic.

cv: Have you not considered that the 'universe' is/was eternal? Meaning, never was there a point, necessity, or requirement/need for a 'first cause agent'?

Yes, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the universe is not eternal and that it had a definite beginning and will eventually have a "heat death." That is what the BB theory has confirmed.

cv: Have you not studied or considered the fact that other earth mammals possess awareness and appear to demonstrate consciousness?

etc etc etc...…

Yes, but there is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. So they are not moral beings. Also, there is no evidence that they have a true Will.

cv:Aside from only the beginning unanswered and unverified questions above, it appears quite presumptuous to just assert your conclusion regarding morals and a God.

Thanks

I didn't just assert it, I have provided evidence for it.

 

[cvanwey]

It is possible but the evidence points toward only one creator. Sinec there is only one major effect, ie the universe, then most likely using Occam's Razor there is only one Cause. Also, given how living things are all based on one primary blueprint, DNA, and they show similar body plans with designs coming off similar based body plans, that points to one Designer. And there are other things that point to only One Creator.

It is possible but the evidence points toward only one creator. Sinec there is only one major effect, ie the universe, then most likely using Occam's Razor there is only one Cause. Also, given how living things are all based on one primary blueprint, DNA, and they show similar body plans with designs coming off similar based body plans, that points to one Designer. And there are other things that point to only One Creator.


See above.


You are correct, just looking at nature you may not realize that He is perfect. We only learn that later when we accept His written message to us.


That is a possibility though the evidence is against it, since the law of causality shows that the cause of the universe must be "outside" time. The cause cannot be part of the effect and time is part of the effect, ie the universe. So most likely the cause is eternal according to logic.



Yes, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the universe is not eternal and that it had a definite beginning and will eventually have a "heat death." That is what the BB theory has confirmed.



Yes, but there is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. So they are not moral beings. Also, there is no evidence that they have a true Will.

I didn't just assert it, I have provided evidence for it.

Before I even begin to reply to these concluded assertions, let me ask you...

1. What is your definition of morality?

2. If morality was demonstrated to exist in animals, besides humans, would you then retract your current conclusions in any way?

3. Do you think morality is a universal construct? Meaning, does absolute 'good' and absolute 'bad' exist, absent of being assessed by the defined moral agent?

4. If the universe was shown to most likely be eternal, would you retract any of your current conclusions about asserting a creator?

If you are steadfast in your conclusions, and nothing can sway your current position, then answering becomes superfluous.

Thanks