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

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That is only the case for machine/tools and slaves. Only that which which does not have freewill, has a purpose assigned by someone else. I am not a slave, and I am not a machine or tool so I am free to decide what my purpose in life is.

As far as creation, my parents gave birth to me; I was not created I was born. Just because my parents are responsible for my existence does not mean they determine what my purpose in life is. Once I become an adult I am free to decide for myself.

Can you please explain to me how according to a Christian worldview where humanity was created by an intelligent being for a purpose that humanity is somehow different from any other creation (machine/tool)?

Second, what is your purpose and explain to me how it is anything more than your subjective opinion according to your secular worldview?

 

[quatona]

I disagree. The intended or created purpose of a thing is the only way a thing's goodness can be objectively measured.

I´m not sure how you come up with such a proposition. Can we make them up out of thin air, or do they need some substantiation?
As it stands now, it seems I could simply claim that the only way to objectively measure the purpose of an item is the way it is used.
Whatever - I don´t think "objective" is the accurate descriptor here. The designer is not objective, the user is not objective.

But, anyway, we can - for arguments sake - accept your analogy for a moment, and I am sure you will be the one who - in your next response - will point out to me that your own analogy doesn´t really apply here.

For example, assuming that I created a knife for the sole purpose of cutting. This purpose drives what qualities are good or bad for that knife. In this case, sharpness and strength are good qualities. Dullness and brittleness are negative qualities and appearance would be irrelevant . However, if the intended purpose of the knife was for decoration or collecting, sharpness and strength wouldn't dictate goodness. The only quality of importance is how well it is pleasing to the eye. The reason why creatorship is critical to establishing an objective standard is because nobody else can objectively establish the purpose of the creators creation. Furthermore, created purpose is objective because it will be true regardless of personal feelings or emotions. You couldn't tell me that a decorative knife was bad because you couldn't cut with it. If it was pleasing to the eye, you would be objectively wrong because it would be true then, today, and forever that the creator of the knife made he knife for the sole purpose of decoration. It would be no different that if you were to tell me that a toaster is bad because it cannot tie your shoes even though it toasts bread perfectly. If you are displeased because you think your decorative knife should cut, it still does not change the fact that the creator never intended the knife to cut. The knife is and always will be simply a decoration.

Assuming that humanity was created by an intelligent being for a specific purpose as the Bible claims, humanity is no different any other object that was created by an intelligent being. God would be our inventor and manufacturer. The Bible is our manufacturers manual which specifically tells us how His product (humanity) ought to be used. Like any other product, if you disregard the manufacturer's manual and use a product for purposes it was never intended, you would be objectively wrong

I wasn´t aware that we put any moral obligations on knives to fulfill the purpose the designer had in mind. If a knife is designed in a way that it can only serve decorative purposes, we either conclude that this has been the designer´s intention, or we conclude a poor designer. In no case we will blame the knife for not serving the intended purpose.
I´m not sure, though, who "the user" is. in your analogy.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I´m not sure how you come up with such a proposition. Can we make them up out of thin air, or do they need some substantiation?
As it stands now, it seems I could simply claim that the only way to objectively measure the purpose of an item is the way it is used.

You are incorrect. I am stating that the only way to objectively measure the qualities of thing as being good or bad is if that thing had a created purpose. Furthermore, these qualities would be objectively good or bad regardless of how it is used. As I have previously explained, created purpose is objective because whatever purpose a creator bestowed onto that creation is and always will be true regardless of your feelings or emotions. This is true for that exact same reason that if I was born in Montana on October 23, 1986, the statement "I was born in Montana on October 23, 1986" would be true then, now, and always, regardless of anyone's personal feelings or emotions. Likewise, when a creator creates something for a specific purpose, that is also a fact that will remain the same then, now, and always. Five years from now, it will still be true that that object was created by a creator for the sole purpose of ____. If you disagree, would be objectively wrong. If you think that the creation should do X instead of Y despite the fact that it performs Y very well, you are then expressing your subjective opinion which is objectively wrong.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I wasn´t aware that we put any moral obligations on knives to fulfill the purpose the designer had in mind. If a knife is designed in a way that it can only serve decorative purposes, we either conclude that this has been the designer´s intention, or we conclude a poor designer. In no case we will blame the knife for not serving the intended purpose.
I´m not sure, though, who "the user" is. in your analogy.

Before I respond to this I ask that you first answer this question. What are the positive or negative qualities of a rock? How is your answer anything other than your subjective opinion?

 

[quatona]

Before I respond to this I ask that you first answer this question. What are the positive or negative qualities of a rock? How is your answer anything other than your subjective opinion?

Actually, I´d rather you address my response before you change the topic.
Thank you.

 

[quatona]

You are incorrect. I am stating that the only way to objectively measure the qualities of thing as being good or bad is if that thing had a created purpose. Furthermore, these qualities would be objectively good or bad regardless of how it is used. As I have previously explained, created purpose is objective because whatever purpose a creator bestowed onto that creation is and always will be true regardless of your feelings or emotions. This is true for that exact same reason that if I was born in Montana on October 23, 1986, the statement "I was born in Montana on October 23, 1986" would be true then, now, and always, regardless of anyone's personal feelings or emotions. Likewise, when a creator creates something for a specific purpose, that is also a fact that will remain the same then, now, and always. Five years from now, it will still be true that that object was created by a creator for the sole purpose of ____. If you disagree, would be objectively wrong.

I think I completely understand what you are saying. I´m just wondering how you get to making these rules.
I have no problem with acknowledging that it will always be objectively true that the subjectively bestowed purpose of the creator was the subjectively bestowed purpose of the creator. In the same way that it will always be true that I used the thing for the purpose I used it for. Neither, though, renders the purpose objective.

If you think that the creation should do X instead of Y despite the fact that it performs Y very well, you are then expressing your subjective opinion which is objectively wrong.

And here we are at the point where you point out how your own analogy is doesn´t apply here: We would´t ask a knife to perform in a certain way.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, evolution requires major changes in morphology. A change in the gene pool does not do that. Unless you can provide an example of an actual body structure change. None of your examples have that. Try again.

ken: You are wrong. I’ve provided countless definitions of Evolution; none of them claiming morphology is required; all of them claiming a change in gene pool is evolution. If you are going to disagree with the definitions I provided, provide a definition that supports your claim that morphology is required in order for evolution to take place.

If evolution produced humans from australopithecines and especially if we are the descendent of a one celled organism, that is a huge amount of change in morphology. Do you even know what morphology means? It means body structure. You dont think there is much body structure difference between humans and one celled organisms?

ken: Sorry but redefining terms to mean something they do not, and building an argument around the your incorrect use of the term that supports your agenda does not work.

I am not redefining anything, see above. Without morphological change, you would appear to be a creationist. Creationists are the ones that dont believe in major morphological change. Are you a creationist?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it is the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the conclusions of the theory.

ken: No; the Big Bang theory starts with the singularity. It says the Universe AS WE KNOW IT started with the singularity. It doesn’t claim anything before the singularity, what caused it, or make any claim on IF it was caused or not. They just don't know.
What Is the Big Bang Theory?

That is not what this post was about, you were denying that the BB is the beginning of space time and matter, but most cosmologists believe it WAS. The singularity is just another name for the beginning. A simple step in logic CAN tell us what caused it but they are afraid of being labeled fundies so they wont take that step.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Huh? As a biologist I do much of my own research of scientific reports, as well as reading the research of others.

ken: So if there is all of this proof that dispels evolution (as you claim) why do you suppose nobody has bothered to prove it wrong? And since you are a biologist (as you claim) why don’t YOU prove it wrong?

As I explained earlier since it is unfalsifiable it cannot be proven wrong. But there has been discovered a great deal of evidence against it and a great deal of evidence for old earth creation.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well he is just probably the most well known atheist scientist.

ken: He is also not here to defend himself; so when you claim he said this or that, I am skeptical if he really said it, or if you are misquoting him. Whatever the case you quoting him does nothing for our conversation.

I know you probably ignored it, but I actually posted an article written by him where he says what I said he said several posts ago.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes feelings are real but you dont always know what is causing them it could be indigestion, hormones, drugs, or etc. and may not have anything to do with morality. So the feeling you are doing the right thing could be just because you ate something bad that day or a hormonal fluctuation.

qua: I guess that´s exactly why we call them "subjective" and not "not real".

I was using the term real to mean something that objectively exists. Feelings do not objectively exist outside the human mind, unlike God's moral character which DOES objectively exist outside human minds. Feelings exist but subjectively.

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you please explain to me how according to a Christian worldview where humanity was created by an intelligent being for a purpose that humanity is somehow different from any other creation (machine/tool)?

You’ll probably be better off asking someone with a Christian worldview, but I will do my best. Christians believe humans have freewill, machines and tools do not. Humans are intelligent beings capable of making decisions, machines and tools are not.

Second, what is your purpose and explain to me how it is anything more than your subjective opinion according to your secular worldview?

My purpose is more of a personal decision that I choose for myself according to my secular worldview, rather than an opinion. Why do you ask?

 

[Ken-1122]

If evolution produced humans from australopithecines and especially if we are the descendent of a one celled organism, that is a huge amount of change in morphology. Do you even know what morphology means? It means body structure. You dont think there is much body structure difference between humans and one celled organisms?

Consider the possibility that a change of body structure AND a change in gene pool are BOTH under the umbrella of Evolution. Again; morphology is not required in order for Evolution to take place.

I am not redefining anything, see above. Without morphological change, you would appear to be a creationist. Creationists are the ones that dont believe in major morphological change. Are you a creationist?

I see Evolution and Creation as addressing two separate issues. Creation is about how everything began from nothing; evolution is about now that which already exists evolves into something different.

That is not what this post was about, you were denying that the BB is the beginning of space time and matter, but most cosmologists believe it WAS. The singularity is just another name for the beginning.

No; the singularity is not another name for beginning, it’s only as far as they can go back. They leave open the possibility that something could have been before the singularity.

A simple step in logic CAN tell us what caused it but they are afraid of being labeled fundies so they wont take that step.

What you call “a simple step in logic” is another way of saying you have nothing to back it up.

As I explained earlier since it is unfalsifiable it cannot be proven wrong. But there has been discovered a great deal of evidence against it and a great deal of evidence for old earth creation.

If a change in gene pool over successive generations never happened, this would prove Evolution false; thus evolution IS falsifiable.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Actually, I´d rather you address my response before you change the topic.
Thank you.

The point of the question is that according to a secular worldview, humanity is no different from rocks in the fact that like a rock, humanity was created by nature through natural means and has no created purpose. Because a rock on the beach has no created purpose, it is impossible to objectively define what qualities make a "good rock". They don't exist. A rock is neither good or bad. It just is. SO like the rock, if humanity has no created purpose, how do we objectively define which qualities make a good or a bad person. Sure you can give a rock a purpose by putting it on a stack of papers and calling it a paperweight. However, that purpose is subjective. You can give yourself a purpose. However, like the rock, it is subjective. This is why you cannot answer the simple question. Because there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You’ll probably be better off asking someone with a Christian worldview, but I will do my best. Christians believe humans have freewill, machines and tools do not. Humans are intelligent beings capable of making decisions, machines and tools are not.

My purpose is more of a personal decision that I choose for myself according to my secular worldview, rather than an opinion. Why do you ask?

The reason why I asked "according to a Christian worldview" is because, like objectively defining a good rock, there is no objective answer according to a secular worldview to define a good human. The only possible answer is a "personal choice". For example, You may say that your purpose is to raise a family and build a legacy. But what if one day your family dies in a tragic accident (heaven forbid) and you found out you can no longer produce offspring? Now you must reevaluate your purpose. Furthermore, if someone was to make the "personal decision" to be a serial killer, who are you or anyone else justified in telling that person their decision is objectively wrong? According to a secular worldview of course.

According to a Christian worldview, the purpose for humanity is to have a relationship with God and to love each other. So assuming that the Christian worldview is correct, any decision that you make that supports this purpose is objectively good and anything that hinders that purpose is objectively evil. Like any other creation, a product that fails to fulfill its purpose is discarded as defective.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point of the question is that according to a secular worldview, humanity is no different from rocks in the fact that like a rock, humanity was created by nature through natural means and has no created purpose.

That is about as absurd as claiming that because rocks are material, and humans are material that they are no different. C’mon you can do better than that! Can’t cha?

Because a rock on the beach has no created purpose, it is impossible to objectively define what qualities make a "good rock".

The person who takes ownership of the rock determines it’s objective qualities that makes it a good rock or not.

They don't exist. A rock is neither good or bad. It just is.

No; a flat rock is good for skipping, a heavy rock is a good paperweight, as I said before; whoever takes possession of the rock determines it’s value.

SO like the rock, if humanity has no created purpose, how do we objectively define which qualities make a good or a bad person.

Unless the person is a slave without free will, the person himself determines what qualities make him a good or bad person.

Sure you can give a rock a purpose by putting it on a stack of papers and calling it a paperweight. However, that purpose is subjective. You can give yourself a purpose. However, like the rock, it is subjective.

Yes it is subjective. What’s your point?

This is why you cannot answer the simple question. Because there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

I think it did just answer your question.

 

[Ken-1122]

The reason why I asked "according to a Christian worldview" is because, like objectively defining a good rock, there is no objective answer according to a secular worldview to define a good human.

Good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral; these terms are all subjective not objective. So while I agree there is not objective way of defining a good human, there is a subjective way of defining a good human.

The only possible answer is a "personal choice". For example, You may say that your purpose is to raise a family and build a legacy. But what if one day your family dies in a tragic accident (heaven forbid) and you found out you can no longer produce offspring? Now you must reevaluate your purpose.

True! Whereas if you were a slave without freewill who was assigned a purpose to raise a family that eventually dies, your life would become worthless because your objective purpose in life has been taken away from you thus the rest of your life will be meaningless.
Don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a subjective purpose than an objective one.

Furthermore, if someone was to make the "personal decision" to be a serial killer, who are you or anyone else justified in telling that person their decision is objectively wrong? According to a secular worldview of course.

As I said before; right/wrong are subjective; not objective. That’s why we have objective laws to prevent those type of things.

According to a Christian worldview, the purpose for humanity is to have a relationship with God and to love each other. So assuming that the Christian worldview is correct, any decision that you make that supports this purpose is objectively good and anything that hinders that purpose is objectively evil. Like any other creation, a product that fails to fulfill its purpose is discarded as defective.

I’ve often found it odd that Christians claim God gives them freewill, yet admit if they do their will instead of God’s will they will be dammed. A bit of a contradiction don’t cha think?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think I completely understand what you are saying. I´m just wondering how you get to making these rules.
I have no problem with acknowledging that it will always be objectively true that the subjectively bestowed purpose of the creator was the subjectively bestowed purpose of the creator. In the same way that it will always be true that I used the thing for the purpose I used it for. Neither, though, renders the purpose objective.

And here we are at the point where you point out how your own analogy is doesn´t apply here: We would´t ask a knife to perform in a certain way.

Ok. Let me try to break this down further. Nothing, regardless of its ability to make choices, can ever be good or bad without a purpose. The purpose in itself can neither be good or bad. Without a purpose, it just "is". However, purpose is the only objective standard to measure the goodness of the qualities a thing possesses. In regards to humanity, we are either created with a purpose or we are not. There is no other option. If a knife was created to cut, who is the knife to tell the creator the he/she was wrong for not making it for decoration?

Taking this further down the rabbit hole. Lets say someone invented and created a robot. This robot had feelings, emotions, dreams, and even freewill to make decisions. But the creator created this robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering onto it. Because the sole purpose of these "painbots" are to suffer, pain and suffering would then be good qualities for this painbot. If a painbot did not experience pain and suffering but only joy and pleasure, that painbot would be discarded as defective.

But what if the painbot gets angry with its creator for creating them for such a purpose? Well, that painbot would be objectively wrong because, by definition, a good quality painbot is one that experiences pain and suffering. The greater the pain and suffering, the better the quality of the painbot. This would be objectively true regardless of the painbot's grievances because a creation cannot change its purpose. Well, you may tell the creator that it is wrong to create painbots and that it is wrong for painbots to suffer. In doing so, all you have done was made the creator's motive and the very existence of painbots subjective. However, the definition of a good quality painbot still remains unchanged because its created purpose has not changed. Perhaps in this scenario the creator was a psychopathic serial killer and this creator created hundreds of painbots so other serial killers can fulfill their twisted desires on a created robot as opposed to another human being? What if as a result of the creator's invention, it saved the lives of thousands of people to include your 6 year old daughter? Would you still hold to your objection?

But what if there was an authority that reigned supreme with no equal who made a law that made painbots illegal. It still doesn't matter because the purpose of the painbots remain unchanged. A good quality painbot is still one which suffers greatly. But what if this supreme authority IS the creator and inventor of not only painbots, but the creator of everything that exists! Because the grievances of a creation has absolutely no impact on its created purpose, no complaining or disagreement from anyone can change their purpose. If you simply "choose" to give yourself a purpose that disagrees with the purpose that was bestowed upon you by your creator, that choice would be factually wrong. You would be declared defective like a happy painbot.

When it comes to humanity under a Christian worldview, we are not creations by a simple inventor. We are creations from the supreme Creator of all that exists! Because of His unique authority, whatever purpose He bestows onto humanity is ABSOLUTE by default. This absolute purpose is the standard at which makes the objective evaluation of the qualities of humanity possible. Otherwise, we are no different than rocks.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That is about as absurd as claiming that because rocks are material, and humans are material that they are no different. C’mon you can do better than that! Can’t cha?

I made no such claim. I stated the obvious fact that rocks were created by nature through natural means and are absent of any intelligent being creating rocks for a specific purpose. According to a secular worldview. Humanity was created by nature through natural means (evolution) absent of any intelligent being creating humanity for a specific purpose. How is this wrong?

The person who takes ownership of the rock determines it’s objective qualities that makes it a good rock or not.

Not true. The qualities are subjective to the individual who "takes ownership" of the rock.

No; a flat rock is good for skipping, a heavy rock is a good paperweight, as I said before; whoever takes possession of the rock determines it’s value.

So what is the purpose of a rock? Skipping or holding paper down? How is this decision anything other than subjective opinion unless you are the one who invented "the rock"? How much is a rock worth and how is it the standard at which its value is measured objective?

Unless the person is a slave without free will, the person himself determines what qualities make him a good or bad person.

What if a person is the creation? A creation cannot make the decision as to its purpose. Only its creator can.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I’ve often found it odd that Christians claim God gives them freewill, yet admit if they do their will instead of God’s will they will be dammed. A bit of a contradiction don’t cha think?

Not entirely true. If a mother tells a child "Thou shalt not touch the hot stove lest ye have your fingers burned.", who is to blame the child's burnt fingers if the child chooses to disobey? God wants you to love and have a relationship with Him. Love is a choice that cannot be forced. Forced love is not love. It's rape. Hell is spending eternity separated with God. I guarantee that God loved every soul that he ever cast into hell. But God is not a divine rapists and loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him. If someone is "dammed", God is no more responsible for it as I am responsible for the child's burnt fingers.

 

[quatona]

The point of the question is that according to a secular worldview, humanity is no different from rocks in the fact that like a rock, humanity was created by nature through natural means and has no created purpose. Because a rock on the beach has no created purpose, it is impossible to objectively define what qualities make a "good rock". They don't exist. A rock is neither good or bad. It just is. SO like the rock, if humanity has no created purpose, how do we objectively define which qualities make a good or a bad person. Sure you can give a rock a purpose by putting it on a stack of papers and calling it a paperweight. However, that purpose is subjective. You can give yourself a purpose. However, like the rock, it is subjective. This is why you cannot answer the simple question. Because there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

And that (apart from the fact that it is just a bunch of strawmen) addresses my post exactly how?

 

[quatona]

Ok. Let me try to break this down further. Nothing, regardless of its ability to make choices, can ever be good or bad without a purpose. The purpose in itself can neither be good or bad. Without a purpose, it just "is". However, purpose is the only objective standard to measure the goodness of the qualities a thing possesses. In regards to humanity, we are either created with a purpose or we are not. There is no other option. If a knife was created to cut, who is the knife to tell the creator the he/she was wrong for not making it for decoration?[

A knife doesn´t happen to have the ability to call the creator anything.
This is where your own analogy breaks down and doesn´t help whatever point you are trying to make.

Taking this further down the rabbit hole. Lets say someone invented and created a robot. This robot had feelings, emotions, dreams, and even freewill to make decisions. But the creator created this robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering onto it. Because the sole purpose of these "painbots" are to suffer, pain and suffering would then be good qualities for this painbot. If a painbot did not experience pain and suffering but only joy and pleasure, that painbot would be discarded as defective.

...which, of course, would shed a doubtful light on the skills of the creator.

But what if the painbot gets angry with its creator for creating them for such a purpose? Well, that painbot would be objectively wrong because, by definition, a good quality painbot is one that experiences pain and suffering. The greater the pain and suffering, the better the quality of the painbot. This would be objectively true regardless of the painbot's grievances because a creation cannot change its purpose. Well, you may tell the creator that it is wrong to create painbots and that it is wrong for painbots to suffer. In doing so, all you have done was made the creator's motive and the very existence of painbots subjective.

No, I can easily acknowledge that the creator had a certain purpose in mind (and, by your terminology, it is called "objective"). Since the creator has made me in a way that I can create purpose, there isn´t a need to get angry with the creator - I might just not care about the creator´s purpose.

But what if there was an authority that reigned supreme with no equal who made a law that made painbots illegal. It still doesn't matter because the purpose of the painbots remain unchanged. A good quality painbot is still one which suffers greatly. But what if this supreme authority IS the creator and inventor of not only painbots, but the creator of everything that exists! Because the grievances of a creation has absolutely no impact on its created purpose, no complaining or disagreement from anyone can change their purpose. If you simply "choose" to give yourself a purpose that disagrees with the purpose that was bestowed upon you by your creator, that choice would be factually wrong. You would be declared defective like a happy painbot.[

And what if the purpose the creator has given its creatures is: To create their own purposes?

When it comes to humanity under a Christian worldview, we are not creations by a simple inventor. We are creations from the supreme Creator of all that exists! Because of His unique authority, whatever purpose He bestows onto humanity is ABSOLUTE by default. This absolute purpose is the standard at which makes the objective evaluation of the qualities of humanity possible. Otherwise, we are no different than rocks.

Of course we are different that rocks. Otherwise the issue you are trying to address wouldn´t even exist.

Actually, you may be the one rebelling against your creator in that you ignore the fact that it has given us (as opposed to knifes and rocks) the ability to experience, think, feel and create purpose. You may be the one who rejects acting upon the purpose you have been given. (But since we are assuming a flawless designer entity, this is also ok - or else it would have prevented its creation from serving its intended "objective" purpose).

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And that (apart from the fact that it is just a bunch of strawmen) addresses my post exactly how?

It addresses the post by explaining why purpose is required in order to objectively measure the qualities a thing possesses as being good or bad. Without it, the thing cannot be good or bad. It can be nothing more than neutral. According to a secular worldview, humanity has no purpose. It just exists. Our decisions are neither good or bad. They just are. Even if you if you have a subjective opinion on what humanity's purpose ought to be it is still nothing more than your subjective opinion. An opinion which determines what you subjectively evaluate as good or evil qualities for yourself and humanity.