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

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes it does, that is what unfalsifiable means and it is a sign that it is not scientific and not real science.

ken: No; unfalsifiable means a scenario cannot be presented where it is proven wrong. The fact that something is accurate does not make it unfalsifiable. Going by your logic, the fact that the law of gravity cannot be proven false means the law of gravity is unfalsifiable.

No, you are confusing scientific THEORIES and scientific FACTS. The scientific theories generally deal with events in the past that can not be empirically observed, the law of gravity is a scientific fact whose effects can be empirically observed and real time experiments can be conducted to test it. This cannot be done with theories of science such as evolution. It cannot be empirically observed. A theory that cannot be falsified is a sign that the theory is not a scientific one.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Have you ever heard Richard Dawkins speak? He definitely feels that way and all of his followers.

ken: I’m not familiar with Richard Dawkins. Unless you share his views, I see no reason for you to bring him into this conversation.

You are kidding me! He is probably the most famous atheist in the world and you have never heard of him? Read this: Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am referring Darwinian evolution whose mechanism is natural selection, the Pope believes in supernatural selection and directed evolution. I am referring to those who believe in undirected evolution.

ken: You read the article; did the Pope say anything about supernatural selection and directed evolution? NO! You are just putting words in his mouth and accusing him of saying stuff he didn’t say

It has to be for the Pope to believe in it, because he believes in the uniqueness of humans and in order to ensure evolution produced humans it would have to be directed otherwise there was a chance that humans would not have been produced.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is because they are Christians, orthodox Christians dont believe that the Bible can be wrong.

ken: Only Orthodox Christians? Are you saying all the other Christians believe the bible could be wrong?

Yes, that is how orthodoxy is determined.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Space is where matter and energy resides.

ken: Interesting. So what’s the difference between Space and Nothing?

Nothing resides in nothing. Matter and energy resides in Space.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If something objective like biology, or even math is being discussed, yeah they should reach the same conclusions. But if something subjective like right or wrong; both people can use logic yet still disagree; because logic is not a guarantee to the truth, it is just a tool used to form beliefs.

Morality can not be discovered using logic, because we are morally flawed beings and in many cases wouldn't recognize it if we saw it. It had to be revealed by an objectively moral perfect being. But the objective existence of God can be discovered by logic.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The only one around here I hear claiming someone's life doesn't have meaning is YOU! You aren't God are you.

No, I said if God doesn't exist then no one's life has real objective meaning. You can have made up pretend meaning but not real meaning if He doesn't exist.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, you are confusing scientific THEORIES and scientific FACTS. The scientific theories generally deal with events in the past that can not be empirically observed, the law of gravity is a scientific fact whose effects can be empirically observed and real time experiments can be conducted to test it. This cannot be done with theories of science such as evolution. It cannot be empirically observed. A theory that cannot be falsified is a sign that the theory is not a scientific one.

Scientific theories explain scientific laws. Gravity is both a scientific law, and a scientific theory.

Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

You are kidding me! He is probably the most famous atheist in the world and you have never heard of him?

The most famous atheist in the world? I doubt it. One of my favorite comedians George Carlin is an atheist; I’ll bet cha he is more famous than Richard Dawkins.

It has to be for the Pope to believe in it, because he believes in the uniqueness of humans and in order to ensure evolution produced humans it would have to be directed otherwise there was a chance that humans would not have been produced.

My point is; to believe in Evolution does not mean you can’t believe in God.

Nothing resides in nothing. Matter and energy resides in Space.

Okay; just for the record; I use nothing and space interchangeably. IOW nothing/space is what exists between object (A) and object (B)

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality can not be discovered using logic, because we are morally flawed beings and in many cases wouldn't recognize it if we saw it. It had to be revealed by an objectively moral perfect being. But the objective existence of God can be discovered by logic.

If you are flawed, how do you recognize perfection when you see it?

No, I said if God doesn't exist then no one's life has real objective meaning. You can have made up pretend meaning but not real meaning if He doesn't exist.

Meaning is subjective; IOW something could be worthless to you but meaningful and valuable to me. So if something is valuable and meaningful to me, it doesn’t matter if you find it worthless, it doesn’t matter if your God finds it worthless; because I value it; by definition it has value.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it is not a conscious belief, it is the fact that all humans are born with a moral conscience and therefore act and live as if there is an objective morality that their conscience is based on, even if they verbally deny its existence.

ken: No; our moral conscious has us behaving as if there is a morality! Whether that morality is objective or subjective doesn’t matter, the behavior is the same.

Exactly our moral conscience has us behaving as if there really IS a morality, not a made up subjective one. Yes, the behavior MAY be the same though if it is subjective then many people will eventually ignore it since it is not real. Just like a child that learns there is no Santa stops talking about him and worrying about him.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, we know by reading and studying His objective written word that rape is wrong, so we know that anyone that claims that God says rape is good is lying.

ken: But the Bible doesn't say rape is wrong. Yeah you can conclude rape is wrong by reading certain verses, but one can also determine rape is good by reading certain verses; it all depends on where you choose to look. Again; what objective means do you have to determine your interpretation trumps his?

No there is no verse that can be understood that rape is good. And there are multiple verses that can be interpreted that rape is very wrong. There is a verse that says that men should treat women as their sister, would you rape your sister?

 

[Ken-1122]

Exactly our moral conscience has us behaving as if there really IS a morality, not a made up subjective one. Yes, the behavior MAY be the same though if it is subjective then many people will eventually ignore it since it is not real. Just like a child that learns there is no Santa stops talking about him and worrying about him.

You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that something is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong,” or that it is somehow less wrong because it's not objective.

No there is no verse that can be understood that rape is good. And there are multiple verses that can be interpreted that rape is very wrong. There is a verse that says that men should treat women as their sister, would you rape your sister?

Both Numbers 31:18 and Deuteronomy 20:14 can both be interpreted that rape is good.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Where in the Bible does it say it is a natural law universe?

I looked it up, and Jeremiah 33:25 says nothing about that.

I probably should have included verse 26. Read it again, He says that only if His "ordinances of heaven and earth" IOW, the laws of nature or physics, stopped working or He ended His covenant with them, only then would He abandon Israel. And of course, He would never break His covenant with HIs own laws or ordinances so that they will never be ended until heaven and earth, ie the universe, is destroyed in the last days.

ken: Oh! So you're changing it now? At first you said they wore clothes because they were cold when they left the Garden, now you seem to be agreeing with me now.

We were talking about if they had not fallen into sin. They would have had to wear clothes when they left the climate controlled garden, but would remove them when they came back. But since they did rebel there were never let back into the garden and it was probably later destroyed by the flood.

 

[Ken-1122]

I probably should have included verse 26. Read it again, He says that only if His "ordinances of heaven and earth" IOW, the laws of nature or physics, stopped working or He ended His covenant with them, only then would He abandon Israel. And of course, He would never break His covenant with HIs own laws or ordinances so that they will never be ended until heaven and earth, ie the universe, is destroyed in the last days.

Still; nowhere in the Bible does it speak of the “Natural law of the Universe”. Admit it; that’s just some stuff you made up!

We were talking about if they had not fallen into sin. They would have had to wear clothes when they left the climate controlled garden, but would remove them when they came back. But since they did rebel there were never let back into the garden and it was probably later destroyed by the flood.

Again; just more stuff you makin’ up. None of this stuff is supported buy your bible is it!

 

[Mountainmike]

Tell me.
If there is no objective morality, Why should I not eat you when hungry?
Less competition, for food. Why should the world care?


Indeed why should you not eat your children?
Saves the cost of looking after them, and because they are young they are probably less tough. Indeed when I am bored why should I not cut them up to see how the pieces function? Why should you not use them as sex slaves?
Or take a cost benefits exercise to see what age to euthanase. Old people are unproductive and cost to many rations and healthcare.
Most of that is abhorrent to people. Why?

I presume you must support all the above as pragmatic if there is no objective morality. I presume you must be actively campaigning to rid the world of such silly morality laws. Get rid of the older generation taking up too many resources.
You could reprocess them for more useful things like oil. Hitler made a business out of body reprocessing. So you would not need to develop reprocessing from scratch.

Less people is less green house gas. There's no limits to th e benefits of ammoral pragmatism.

So Where does your amoral pragmatism stop?
Are there limits to your proposed amorality?


And what is this " natural law" you speak off?

The observation that because many things give the same response to the same stimulus, and because we are cunning and careful experimenters has led to the wonderful developments of technology, we call science.

My car gives the same response to Same stimulus too. It isn't of natural origin. The child who makes buildings out of blocks is not entitled to assume that the blocks are natural. He can work out the laws of how to fit them together.

So when I start to recognise the component parts of cells and see the patterns in behaviour in some of their parts , does it entitle me to think it was all a random accident? And by the way - there is not even a valid hypothesis for abiogenesis, using the scientific definition of hypothesis. Sure, science has found some natural " bricks" but the existence of bricks or clay is not an argument for self building houses.

When craig ventner is arrogant and enough to think he knows sufficient to create new designer organisms - does it entitle him to think the design was a chemical accident.? When I was young and when electronics was novel I used to strip electronic circuit boards for bits , whose origin I had no idea, I would study the circuits and then reuse the bits to make other things. Made my own oscilloscope at Age 12. It didn't entitle me to believe the circuit boards were natural.

As a scientist I am fascinated by these patterns - but
the observation model of what things normally do, (science) cannot answer the question of why they exist or even in essence what they are. We only have a narrow view ( projection) of them constrained to the limits of our senses and dimensions we perceive.

Good Evening. I am Zed Aliz Zed

And this shall be a briefing on Morality. and issues with different kinds of it.


What is Morality?



The basic creed of every civilization and fundamentally the basis of "Good" and "Evil" the idea itself is probably as old as Humanity is. as even without written language, there is always an unspoken code.
or for definition
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And the second stance the one I will be arguing for.
sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective:

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

The main argument for those of the Abrahamic religion is that God is Omnipotent and Omniscience so he decides Morality. which you would think would mean its Objective based on that argument but even then that's, not a good point.

simply because it can be taken apart simply by saying "well if Lucifer was even more powerful would you follow his creed?" most Christians would say no. but then they admit that morality cant is objective as if it comes from a higher power. then it changes depending on who holds power.

a secondary argument is God in the bible has a personality. a goal of some sorts and a large portion of what he commands us to do helps him not us. so it could be argued his morality itself is subjective and he simply pushes it objectively on us. that would also explain how it changes throughout the Bible

once wearing mixed fabric was a sin. see Leviticus for detail around the homosexuality. (which if you are going to quote don't lay with a man I best hope that shirt and pants are all cotton or of the same fabric or your a hypocrite)

but seeing as how no one seems to follow the mixed fabric rule and many argue Leviticus does not apply any longer thanks to Jesus you can see a change of law and morality.

Law itself is mostly reflected upon Morality but depends on whose in power. so really the bible does not deal in morality but in law. as the law does not claim to always reflect morality, after all, there are many law's here in the US which are seemingly [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] and helps no one and yet exist for some odd reason.

Laws also directly change year to year and sometimes in opposition to the generally held morality of the time. which makes sense as if Law is reflected on morality than it goes on the morality of whoever decides the Law.
Morality varies person to person even within those of the same faith and sect.




Where does that Leave Good and Evil?




That's just it. I don't think there is any such thing as Good or Evil. while there is Illegal and Legal there is no real Good or Evil. such things require consistency and Objectivity. but if the bible changes and the general message changes and both are from the same being that he himself is not solid but liquid. and changes as well. as does every Animal we all change over time. in one way or another.

so you yourself, if you are Christian, can argue that let us use Homosexuality as an example. you can argue it against the biblical law but you can't exactly argue it immoral. especially when even within the Christian faith it is becoming more accepted and overtime if the religion still exists in the coming century will probably be treated like that mixed fabric rule. and completely ignored.

I Myself am Deist and see the only morality there is, is the law of nature. which is unbreakable. so there is no point trying to follow it. as you already do.

everything else is man-made. morality itself a construction of thought. a needed tool and one we can not exist currently without but one that should not be considered in stone. as everything changes. Law. People. Time. and so we should welcome such change and keep tweaking our codes and creeds until we find the perfect set if possible.


If you have read this far without storming off I applaud you and would love to hear your thoughts or arguments on the mater. though I probably have heard them all and countered them all at one point.

Good Night.

 

[quatona]

Tell me.
If there is no objective morality, Why should I not eat you when hungry?
Less competition, for food. Why should the world care?

Why should I care about "objective morality"?

Indeed why should you not eat your children?

Since we haven´t established what "objective morality" prescribes, we don´t know whether it possibly demands us to eat our children.

 

[Mountainmike]

Stop playing sophist games. The OP used the phrase "objective morality" ask him.
And if you do not accept (or oppose) any version of it, you should not be on the thread.

If you consider morality pragmatic -you must follow the logical conclusions of your own dogma:

And so pragmatism supports euthanasia for all people, at age or infirmity when they cease to be productive and/or consume more resources than they produce. Better for the planet. Less consumption of resources. Far less healthcare. No pensions needed. Reprocessing of bodies and so on. No downside.

SIMPLE YES OR NO Do you support that cost benefits view of euthanasia, indeed any version of euthanasia or not?

It is abhorrent to most people. Why? If morality is just pragmatic.?

Why should I care about "objective morality"?



Since we haven´t established what "objective morality" prescribes, we don´t know whether it possibly demands us to eat our children.

 

[quatona]

Stop playing sophist games. The OP used the phrase "objective morality" ask him.
And if you do not accept (or oppose) any version of it, you should not be on the thread.

Spare me the rhethorics, please.
But sure, an "objective morality" that agrees with me might come in handy.

If you consider morality pragmatic -you must follow the logical conclusions of your own dogma:

Firstly, I don´t consider it "pragmatic", I consider it subjective.
Secondly, it´s not a dogma, it´s an observation. You are invited to demonstrate that - on top of the observable subjective morality - there is such a thing as "objective morality", though. However, mere arguments from consequence (which are ironically appealing to pragmatism) won´t do.

It is abhorrent to most people.

I´m not sure how the subjective opinion of people will make a case for "objective morality". I´m waiting in anticipation for that logic.

Why? If morality is just pragmatic.?

Last time I checked, the opposite of objective was subjective, not "pragmatic". You appear to be moving the goalposts.

To answer your personal question about my subjective opinion and the underlying "why?":
I support the things that - all effects and consequences considered - are likely to help create a world I want to live in, and I object to those things that are likely to create a world I wouldn´t live in. Euthanasia is in the latter group. Hope that helps.

 

[Ken-1122]

Tell me.
If there is no objective morality, Why should I not eat you when hungry?
Less competition, for food. Why should the world care?

Not only because it is subjectively wrong, but there are objective laws in place that will punish you for committing such an act

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet More sophistry: Last chance for a reply that addresses the question.

Assuming 1/ you enter the conversation for debate not disruption and
2/ are rational and
3/ disavow objective frameworks of morality then your subjective choice of morality will not be random but based on a rational decision framework .
4/ Rational decisions are based on optimization of a pragmatic (you suggest) subjective advantage

But it is not about you.
If you demand subjective morality what possible basis do have you to disallow others to perform euthanasia of those too disabled or old to contribute more than they cost?
So why are you content to live in a society that accepts the direct consequenec of such subjective morality?
Whatever hedonistic reason you may have for keeping old people how can you impose on others?


Indeed by making it subjective other questions become apparent
What rational framework do you offer for keeping an expensive incumbrance?
Or are you irrational?
Or are you a hedonist that demands the world allows whatever your whims determine you "Like"

Subjective morality cannot work as a norm.
And pragmatic morality is responsible for horrendous crimes - ask communists - as indeed are sociopaths.

I will leave you trapped in your intellectual maze. To argue with the maze about its rules that are locking you in.

Spare me the rhethorics, please.
But sure, an "objective morality" that agrees with me might come in handy.


Firstly, I don´t consider it "pragmatic", I consider it subjective.
Secondly, it´s not a dogma, it´s an observation. You are invited to demonstrate that - on top of the observable subjective morality - there is such a thing as "objective morality", though. However, mere arguments from consequence (which are ironically appealing to pragmatism) won´t do.



I´m not sure how the subjective opinion of people will make a case for "objective morality". I´m waiting in anticipation for that logic.

Last time I checked, the opposite of objective was subjective, not "pragmatic". You appear to be moving the goalposts.

To answer your personal question about my subjective opinion and the underlying "why?":
I support the things that - all effects and consequences considered - are likely to help create a world I want to live in, and I object to those things that are likely to create a world I wouldn´t live in. Euthanasia is in the latter group. Hope that helps.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not only because it is subjectively wrong, but there are objective laws in place that will punish you for committing such an act

How is it subjectively wrong?
If there is no objective framework - why can everyone not choose their own?

Any pragmatic view of morality would euthanase all at an age or dysfunctionality at which they fail a cost benefits test. Some of the long term unemployed too. After all they are not needed. Get rid of all those pensions, healthcare bills. Free up accommodation for more useful people. Less green house gasses. Complete win.

At least the children might make good slaves if you did not eat them. You could sell them at a good price to those who have other uses for them. So more worth keeping than the old and grey.

But That thought is abhorrent to most people.
And that abhorrence translated into laws.
But where did that abhorrence come from?

Why? if morality were just a relative thing?
If morality were subjective, what gives us the right to condemn other regimes if they take their different subjective view?

Subjective morality cannot work. As communist regimes have proven

 

[quatona]

But it is not about you.

Then don´t make it sound like it were.

If you demand subjective morality

"demand"? I demand evidence for an objective morality. That morality is subject to subjective opinion is - well - obvious. I needn´t demand it.

what possible basis do have you to disallow others to perform euthanasia of those too disabled or old to contribute more than they cost?

None. But claiming my view to be objective wouldn´t create a basis for it either.
Your argument from consequence doesn´t help your case. The lack of an "objective morality" might be regrettable, but that doesn´t make a case for its existence. We are not in dreamland.

So why are you content to live in a society that accepts the direct consequenec of such subjective morality?

...because I have yet to see an alternative. Again, I am not into wishful thinking and stuff.

Whatever hedonistic reason you may have for keeping old people how can you impose on others?

"Hedonistic"? You are getting ever further off tangent.

Indeed by making it subjective other questions become apparent

I don´t have to make my opinion subjective. It is. The question is: How could one possibly escape this fact? You don´t offer any way to get there. Or should I just claim my opinion to be "objective", and you and everybody would agree?

Subjective morality cannot work as a norm.

Well, quite obviously it works well enough.

And pragmatic morality is responsible for horrendous crimes - ask communists - as indeed are sociopaths.

It seems to me that the most horrendous actions in history were performed by moral objectivists.

 

[Ken-1122]

How is it subjectively wrong?

Because both right and wrong are subjective; not objective

If there is no objective framework - why can everyone not choose their own?

Everybody DOES choose on their own; that’s why we have objective laws in place; trying to have morality as law will never work.

Any pragmatic view of morality would euthanase all at an age or dysfunctionality at which they fail a cost benefits test. Some of the long term unemployed too. After all they are not needed. Get rid of all those pensions, healthcare bills. Free up accommodation for more useful people. Less green house gasses. Complete win.

At least the children might make good slaves if you did not eat them. You could sell them at a good price to those who have other uses for them. So more worth keeping than the old and grey.

All that stuff is prevented by law; not morality.

But That thought is abhorrent to most people.
And that abhorrence translated into laws.

Yes; objective laws.

But where did that abhorrence come from?

Objective laws come from subjective moral views.

Why? if morality were just a relative thing?

When enough people agree on something relative, they create a law around it, thus making it objective and enforceable.

If morality were subjective, what gives us the right to condemn other regimes if they take their different subjective view?

We don’t condemn regimes on international morality, they are condemned on international law.

Subjective morality cannot work. As communist regimes have proven

Nobody gets to choose whether morality is subjective or objective; it either is or it isn't. We have no choice but to have it work. If morality were objective we wouldn't need laws; we would just enforce the right thing to do.

 

[Mountainmike]

As always relativists dodge the questions they cannot answer.
You have the cart in front of the horse in hiding behind law which is pure sophistry on your part.

The idea of systematic euthanasia of unproductive disabled, old and infirm, or eating children or using them as sexslaves is apriori abhorrent to almost everyone.

Or are you one of the few exceptions? State clearly if you agree or disagree with any of the above

I will wager you are against all of those, just like everyone else.


That is not a subjective choice or the result of arbitrary democracy.
It is the law mirroring apriori abhorrence.
The law is not arbitrary. It followed it did not lead.

The question you cannot answer:
Where did the apriori abhorrence come from?
And why is it (almost) universally shared - including by you - if you and others are free to take a subjective view in which there is no objective standard.

Any pragmatic view would treat euthanasia as an exercise in cost benefits.
And that is abhorrent to almost everyone including you. That is why law followed. It did not lead. And you cannot hide behind it.

I will leave you to keep convincing yourself black is white.

Because both right and wrong are subjective; not objective


Everybody DOES choose on their own; that’s why we have objective laws in place; trying to have morality as law will never work.


All that stuff is prevented by law; not morality.


Yes; objective laws.


Objective laws come from subjective moral views.


When enough people agree on something relative, they create a law around it, thus making it objective and enforceable.


We don’t condemn regimes on international morality, they are condemned on international law.


Nobody gets to choose whether morality is subjective or objective; it either is or it isn't. We have no choice but to have it work. If morality were objective we wouldn't need laws; we would just enforce the right thing to do.

 

[Belk]

As always relativists dodge the questions they cannot answer.
You have the cart in front of the horse in hiding behind law which is pure sophistry on your part.

The idea of systematic euthanasia of unproductive disabled, old and infirm, or eating children or using them as sexslaves is apriori abhorrent to almost everyone.

Or are you one of the few exceptions? State clearly if you agree or disagree with any of the above

I agree with the above except for the claims of it being a priori. You have not established that this abhorrence happens outside of cultural norms.

I will wager you are against all of those, just like everyone else.


That is not a subjective choice or the result of arbitrary democracy.
It is the law mirroring apriori abhorrence.
The law is not arbitrary. It followed it did not lead.

I eagerly await evidence for your claims.

The question you cannot answer:
Where did the apriori abhorrence come from?
And why is it (almost) universally shared - including by you - if you and others are free to take a subjective view in which there is no objective standard.

If it is not a subjective opinion why do you qualify your claims since even you acknowledge it is not universally shared.

The abhorrence comes from a combination of morality developed via evolution coupled with cultural norms. Your question has now been answered.

Any pragmatic view would treat euthanasia as an exercise in cost benefits.
And that is abhorrent to almost everyone including you. That is why law followed. It did not lead. And you cannot hide behind it.

I will leave you to keep convincing yourself black is white.

It appears you have nothing more then claims you are unable to substantiate coupled with an argument from ignorance. Even if I could not answer your question that would not make your claims true by default.