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

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Same thing. Abductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of logical reasoning and both are used in science. From your article: Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

ken: All abductive reasoning is logical, but not everything logical is abductive reasoning. When you said “all you have to do is make a step of logic and conclude…..” that logic was not abductive reasoning.

Abductive reasoning is "inference to the best explanation for an observation." That is exactly what I did. I observe an effect, ie the universe, and I reason to the existence of the Christian God as the simplest and best explanation for all the characteristics of the universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Thanks for making my point

ken: Your point was a little more than mankind is no longer evolving, your point was also that mankind NEVER evolved.

No, my point was that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable and you confirmed it by coming up with another explanation to keep it unfalsified. Which is what all hardcore evolutionists do every time some evidence comes up that does not fit the theory.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Zed, I'm new here. Are you arguing that it is objectively true that objective morality doesn't exist?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Zed, I'm new here. Are you arguing that it is objectively true that objective morality doesn't exist?

Welcome.

No. The argument is that those that believe in objective morality haven't made their case and thus the assertion is unwarranted.

 

[Ken-1122]

Abductive reasoning is "inference to the best explanation for an observation." That is exactly what I did. I observe an effect, ie the universe, and I reason to the existence of the Christian God as the simplest and best explanation for all the characteristics of the universe.

That's find and dandy and all, but let's not pretend that your reasoning has anything to do with science.

No, my point was that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable and you confirmed it by coming up with another explanation to keep it unfalsified. Which is what all hardcore evolutionists do every time some evidence comes up that does not fit the theory.

Just because humans are no longer evolving does not mean evolution is unfalsifiable. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Ken-1122]

Zed, I'm new here. Are you arguing that it is objectively true that objective morality doesn't exist?

Welcome.
I however would make that argument. Why do you ask?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I can prove using logical reasoning that you cannot be the creator of the universe and therefore cannot be the objective standard of morality.
ken: Being creator of the Universe has nothing to do with being the objective standard of morality.

Actually it does, just like the universe contains natural laws so also there is evidence that the universe contains moral laws, therefore whatever created the universe was a law giver as Einstein said. So since you did not create the universe you could not create the natural and moral laws of the universe either.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, another writer wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy explaining how Moses died, so that was another eyewitness to Moses. Also, the writer of Exodus and Deut. shows evidence of knowing a great deal about the time period, the area, and being an eyewitness to the events. And the people at the base of Sinai also heard God's voice not just Moses.

ken: How do you know these people weren’t lying?

Because much of it has been confirmed by archeology and also the ancient Hebrews like Moses believed in moral absolutes, such as the belief that not lying is a moral absolute and that God would punish them if they lied. Also, there was no such thing as fiction as we know it in the 14th century BC. The stories may be wrong but the writers did not intentionally write something wrong in ancient times, like novelists do today.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You dont have any objective basis for claiming what they did was wrong.
ken: I never said I had an objective basis for anything; I just said what they did was wrong.

You cant say that, you can only say that you FEEL like what they did was wrong. Your morality is only based on feelings not objective standards. Just like Adolf Hitler's morality was based on his feelings about what is right and wrong.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is not what we were talking about, I was making the point that if you base your morality on your subjective feelings then things that are beyond your control such as drugs and hormones can cause you believe things about morality that you would not normally believe. But if you base your morality on an objective standard such as God's character and His word, then you have something that can over ride and correct those beliefs based on feelings.

ken: I don’t trust your God’s moral character; I’d rather stick with my own.

Of course, you are free to do that because objective Christian morality commands me to allow freedom of conscience. But you cannot rationally say that something is actually wrong, you can only say that you feel it is wrong, but you have no REAL basis for making that judgement since you dont have an objective basis.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Welcome.

No. The argument is that those that believe in objective morality haven't made their case and thus the assertion is unwarranted.

Thank you for the welcome and the reply.

With your reply, it seems that the principle is still the same. Essentially, you and/or Zed are positing an objective truth; "objective morality......" Doesn't that statement bear the same onus that it asserts? It seems that, to be intellectually honest, the person positing the statement would have to "make the case" that the statement is objectively true. It seems like the subjective person is attempting to establish objective truths without having proven the supposition. It seems like a classic case of attempting to have one's cake and to eat it too.
Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you for the welcome and the reply.

With your reply, it seems that the principle is still the same. Essentially, you and/or Zed are positing an objective truth; "objective morality......" Doesn't that statement bear the same onus that it asserts? It seems that, to be intellectually honest, the person positing the statement would have to "make the case" that the statement is objectively true. It seems like the subjective person is attempting to establish objective truths without having proven the supposition. It seems like a classic case of attempting to have one's cake and to eat it too.
Respectfully,
T R-R

If you empty 20 randomly-sized bags of jelly-beans into a giant jar and someone says the number jellybeans is odd, you would be justified in saying I don't believe you can assert that. Should he/she infer that you are asserting that the number is even? Of course not.

Proponents of Objective Morality have not begun to count their jellybeans.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Respectfully, you did not address the question. It seems that you are asserting that objective truth is knowable, yet you haven't established how it is knowable. It is fine with me if you have faith that objective truth is knowable, but you haven't established this. The analogy of jars and jelly beans does not speak to the issue.
Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually it does, just like the universe contains natural laws so also there is evidence that the universe contains moral laws, therefore whatever created the universe was a law giver as Einstein said. So since you did not create the universe you could not create the natural and moral laws of the universe either.

Einstein does not make up the rules. But face it; if your God is a moral law giver, then so am I. Nobody listens to me, nor do they listen to your God; so what’s the difference?

Because much of it has been confirmed by archeology and also the ancient Hebrews like Moses believed in moral absolutes, such as the belief that not lying is a moral absolute and that God would punish them if they lied. Also, there was no such thing as fiction as we know it in the 14th century BC. The stories may be wrong but the writers did not intentionally write something wrong in ancient times, like novelists do today.

Most Bible scholars agree Moses led somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million Israelites into the desert and they wondered around for 40 years. There isn’t a shred of archeological evidence that millions of people wondered around any desert for that amount of time that many years ago; they left no trail. Archeological evidence works against the Bible not for it.

You cant say that, you can only say that you FEEL like what they did was wrong. Your morality is only based on feelings not objective standards. Just like Adolf Hitler's morality was based on his feelings about what is right and wrong.

Yes. When I say something is wrong, I am speaking about how I feel about the issue which his based on my subjective moral standard. There is no such a thing as an objective moral standard.

Of course, you are free to do that because objective Christian morality commands me to allow freedom of conscience. But you cannot rationally say that something is actually wrong, you can only say that you feel it is wrong, but you have no REAL basis for making that judgement since you dont have an objective basis.

You do the same thing, you just erroneously claim what you feel as wrong to be God's objective moral standard. At most it would be God's subjective moral standard.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Welcome.
I however would make that argument. Why do you ask?

Thank you for the welcome and reply.

As you may have read in my response to Tinker, don't you bear the same onus to show how your statement is objectively true?
Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Thank you for the welcome and the reply.

With your reply, it seems that the principle is still the same. Essentially, you and/or Zed are positing an objective truth; "objective morality......"
T R-R

There is a big difference between truth vs morality. There are many objective truths; the claim 1+1=2 is an example of an objective truth. There is no such a thing as objective morality. Truths can often be proven, thus can be objective; morality cannot thus is only subjective.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

There is a big difference between truth vs morality. There are many objective truths; the claim 1+1=2 is an example of an objective truth. There is no such a thing as objective morality. Truths can often be proven, thus can be objective; morality cannot thus is only subjective.

Again, you are positing a statement without supporting the veracity of it. With your 1+1 analogy you are essentially positing Socratic logic, or some variant of it, as objectively true. You really are only saying, "what I pose is true, you need to establish your positions."

The existence of morality, by a scientific definition, poses no greater metaphysical barrier than do other "objects." You seem to be saying that, "morality is a social construction, but my understanding of logic is objective truth." Your positions need to bear the same onus that you demand for others; regardless of whether the statement is about morality or not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Respectfully, you did not address the question. It seems that you are asserting that objective truth is knowable, yet you haven't established how it is knowable. It is fine with me if you have faith that objective truth is knowable, but you haven't established this. The analogy of jars and jelly beans does not speak to the issue.
Respectfully,
T R-R

I'm confused. I don't know what you are asking me.

I'm saying that if someone suggests that morality is objective, that someone should be able to demonstrate that morality is indeed objective. If one cannot demonstrate that, then I assert that one is not justified in making the claim. That's it.

Morality might be objective, but if you cannot demonstrate that you can't make the claim.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

What I am saying is that you are violating the same standard that you are expecting others to uphold.

Your statement : "I'm saying that if someone suggests that morality is objective, that someone should be able to demonstrate that morality is indeed objective. If one cannot demonstrate that, then I assert that one is not justified in making the claim." (emphasis mine)

The part of your statement that I emphasized is a statement that you have not established as being anything more than your own personal standard. If you demand that this is an objective standard, then you have to demonstrate how this is so. If it is your personal belief, that is perfectly fine. You then are merely arguing against your own meta-narrative that those who hold beliefs, on morality in this case, are not justified in making the claim. You are destroying your own position.
Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Tinker Grey]

That statement is Meta. It is a should; it is not a claim to objective truth.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

That statement is Meta. It is a should; it is not a claim to objective truth.

Then what are your reasons to be in a debate? It seems disingenuous, at best, to demand others justify their claims when you won't.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[durangodawood]

Welcome.

No. The argument is that those that believe in objective morality haven't made their case and thus the assertion is unwarranted.

I guess that depends on what one means by "objective morality".

 

[Tinker Grey]

It seems a basic consideration of debates/discussions that things asserted to be true should be able to be demonstrated to be true. If interlocuters can't abide by this agreement, then there is no discussion to be had; the dissenters are here only to assert.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

That statement is Meta. It is a should; it is not a claim to objective truth.

Also, if your making statements of "should" aren't you then, therefore, expecting others to live by your codes of proper behavior? It seems like you are attempting to impose your morality, yes it is morality when you say "should," on others.

Respectfully,
T R-R