Morality is objective, except when it isn't

Oompa Loompa

Against both police brutality and cop killing.
Jun 4, 2020
5,460
2,418
40
Louisiana
✟143,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would not use the word hypocrisy here. It's an issue of contradiction.
Fair enough. There does seem to be a contradiction. I don't think there is. Sticking with your example of children, can you explain why it is objectively morally wrong to kill a child?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There's nothing inaccessible about the will of God. Being created in his image, we naturally have a strong sense of his moral will. It's written on our hearts and in many ways "common sense" to us. It's also clearly revealed in Scripture.

So when someone thinks slavery is wrong, homosexuality is not wrong, and/or men and women should be considered equal (in part) --- all of which conflicts with assertions made in Scripture; then such a human is just in denial of their true moral compass?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
For God to forgive without a substitutionary atonement would be for God to violate his own desire for justice. God would not be pleased to do this.

Why is "substitutionary atonement" a requirement by God?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TLK Valentine
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Moral standard of judgment.

How do you know God IS the 'moral standard of judgement'???

And even if you were to demonstrate this reality, how does this not make such a conclusion arbitrary?

If such a conclusion is brought to fruition, the worshiping human is really doing nothing more than following dictates. If the worshiping human happens to disagree, too bad -- so sad... Might makes right.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Similar to GE Moore's naturalistic fallacy, it actually makes no sense to ask whether or not God's will is good. It's like asking if "good" is good.

It's not possible for God to be "bad"?

What if we were to all find out that Xenu was the real God? All other gods were indeed imaginary. Does this render Xenu/God good? Or only if it should turn out to be YHWH?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I'm fine if we want to say that morality is subjective because it's based on God's perspective. The thing about God, though, is that he is an absolute being. So morality is based upon an absolute subject.

Hence:

slavery = okay
men > women = okay
homosexuality = not okay
Favoring one tribe over another, (which includes infanticide) = okay
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma. Moral reality is rooted in the character of God. God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm. But God is also not arbitrary or whimsical in his commands because his commands are rooted in the reality of his eternal and unchanging character.

That does not avoid the dilemma. All appeals to a third option, let's call it X, will always collapse back to the same question - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X? You're still left having to choose between the horn of arbitrariness, or the horn of independent standard.

You can avoid the dilemma by strictly identifying Yahweh with good, but that renders him superfluous. We already have a word for good. It's called "good".

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of gleaning what Yahweh's standard is in the first place, even granting his existence. Whether he exists or not, we are left to our own devices.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd wager your response was basically name dropping a bunch of obscure academics, followed by a word salad that I would need to untoss.

Well, it's always possible that I have dropped a name or two here or there. But whether I did or not, I'd concentrate more on the fact that since I've pretty much dismantled the Euthyphro Dilemma in the past, whether anyone realizes I did or not, I'd say that it really should no longer be seen as having any place at all in the skeptical apparatus of evaluation which skeptics try to use to knock the monotheistic God of the Bible off the table. With that said, I'm at pains to see how there's much left for you or any other skeptic here to hoot about in your OP. (And yes, I'm FULLY cognizant and aware of just how jarringly audacious, maybe even narcissistic this sounds of me to say it....in just this way. But, there it is!)

On the other hand, I will give you this much, though,--- and the credit I give to you here, NV, doesn't come from any further wild gesticulations that could be made over anything Socrates might have said through Plato, --- but it rather comes from the nature of basic theology in the Bible, and it is this: if God's 'fuller moral truth' comes only by Specific Revelation and not so much by General Revelation, then you have a partial point that Christian Morality isn't objective but rather Subjective.

Moreover, your skeptical contentions here may very well reflect some of the Kierkegaardian notion about how our own individual positions of Subjectivity (by which I mean his definition of the 'Subjective' and not the usual run of the mill definition of the same term) can only partly engage with Objective attempts to marshal systemically ethical insights about the moral Reality in which we all live (or in which we think we live).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If I may toss out a morsel for your consideration:

"The judgement as to the goodness or badness of a particular human act depends, not just on the act itself, but on the context in which the act is carried out. Subjectivity in ethical judgments is thus inescapable. . ."

". . .Good and evil are not fixed categories; they never have been. No matter what the religious claims of the past have been, it is now impossible to build an ethical system on the basis of an unchanging or eternal standard. Claims that some rule both is unchanging and comes from a divine source are today little more than lingering religious illusions. Those who seek to lead us into new studies and insights must face this reality, deal with it, dismiss it and look elsewhere for guidance in determining just what it is that makes good "good" and evil "evil."

-- Bishop John Shelby Spong.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Fair enough. There does seem to be a contradiction. I don't think there is. Sticking with your example of children, can you explain why it is objectively morally wrong to kill a child?

No, of course I can't explain that. I don't believe that morality is objective, nor do I think that it is even a sensible notion.

But we don't need to appeal to philosophy to know that killing children is evil. It's obviously evil and any philosophy that comes to a different conclusion is obviously flawed.

You've already found yourself saying that killing children is not obviously evil and that it "Depends on who is killing the child and for what reason. Need context." So obviously your philosophy, which is grounded in your religion, is severely flawed.

The first thing you said on this thread was a remark about abortion. Just a couple back-and-forths later, you throw your hands up and declare that you have no idea whether it's good or bad to kill children without knowing the context. I'd like you to explain to me how that's going to go over with the pro-choice crowd.

I think if evangelicals just stopped pushing on the abortion issue, more unborn human beings would be spared. Right-wing Evangelicals fail spectacularly at reaching the hearts and minds of sexually active young women. Supporting a president who brags about casual sexual assault will not win over these sexually active young women. And which political platform offers them more help with pregnancy and post-pregnancy - a capitalism-driven conservative approach with little to no handouts, or a "socialism" approach that helps people in need? Are sexually active women drawn to second-amendment issues? And to top it off, you're ok with children being ripped to pieces as long as it's your own deity doing it or commanding it. Sorry, but what I see from right-wing Evangelicals is just lip-service and fake outrage about the unborn with little to no genuine effort put forth in saving them, because you will accomplish absolutely nothing if you don't reach the hearts and minds of sexually active young women.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, it's always possible that I have dropped a name or two here or there. But whether I did or not, I'd concentrate more on the fact that since I've pretty much dismantled the Euthyphro Dilemma in the past, whether anyone realizes I did or not, I'd say that it really should no longer be seen as having any place at all in the skeptical apparatus of evaluation which skeptics try to use to knock the monotheistic God of the Bible off of the table. With that said, I'm at pains to see how there's much left for you or any other skeptic here to hoot about in your OP. (And yes, I'm FULLY cognizant and aware of just how jarringly audacious, maybe even narcissistic this sounds of me to say it....in just this way. But, there it is!)

On the other hand, I will give you this much, though,--- and the credit I give to you here, NV, doesn't come from any further wild gesticulations that could be made over anything Socrates might have said through Plato, --- but it rather comes from the nature of basic theology in the Bible, and it is this: if God's 'fuller moral truth' comes only by Specific Revelation and not so much by General Revelation, then you have a partial point that Christian Morality isn't objective but rather Subjective.

Moreover, your skeptical contentions here may very well reflect some of the Kierkegaardian notion about how our own individual positions of Subjectivity (by which I mean his definition of the 'Subjective' and not the usual run of the mill definition of the same term) can only partly engage with Objective attempts to marshal systemically ethical insights about the moral Reality in which we all live (or in which we think we live).

The more confident you are that you've defeated a millennia-old argument, the louder my Dunning-Kruger alarm sounds.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The more confident you are that you've defeated a millennia-old argument, the louder my Dunning-Kruger alarm sounds.

Oh, don't worry, NV. I'm sure that you know quite a few things that I don't and that because you're an educated, honest, rational individual with more integrity than I could ever wish to have, you'll be more than willing to read, study and evaluate with me the entirety of Plato's Euthyphro---in full---and line by pain staking line.

And I know that since you're this kind of upright, ethical individual, you'd do this because you know even better than I do that we wouldn't want to use a cheap knock off of what Plato's Socrates actually said in his Euthyphro argument and then surreptitiously attempt to apply it to a conceptual entity (like the Biblical God) that is ill-fitted for such an application.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh, don't worry, NV. I'm sure that you know quite a few things that I don't and that because you're an educated, honest, rational individual with more integrity than I could ever wish to have, you'll be more than willing to read, study and evaluate with me the entirety of Plato's Euthyphro---in full---and line by pain staking line.

And I know that since you're this kind of upright, ethical individual, you'd do this because you know even better than I do that we wouldn't want to use a cheap knock off of what Plato's Socrates actually said in his Euthyphro argument and then surreptitiously attempt to apply it to a conceptual entity (like the Biblical God) that is ill-fitted for such an application.

That's like saying you have to fly in a vessel invented by the Wright brothers because versions developed with iterative improvements are knock-offs.

Yes, let's restrict ourselves to what may have been said in a document preserved from thousands of years ago. By no means should we use our own intelligence to ensure the argument holds up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've pretty much dismantled the Euthyphro Dilemma in the past, whether anyone realizes I did or not
Really! I didn't realize it at all. I would be very interested indeed in seeing how you did it.
I'd say that it really should no longer be seen as having any place at all in the skeptical apparatus of evaluation which skeptics try to use to knock the monotheistic God of the Bible off the table.
That comes as something of a surprise to me, because I always felt that the arguments developed from Euthyphro's Dilemma offered an insuperable obstacle to Christians (and any other theists) who claim that morality is based on the existence of a god or gods.
And yes, I'm FULLY cognizant and aware of just how jarringly audacious, maybe even narcissistic this sounds of me to say it....in just this way. But, there it is!
Don't worry about it.
 
Upvote 0

Oompa Loompa

Against both police brutality and cop killing.
Jun 4, 2020
5,460
2,418
40
Louisiana
✟143,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, of course I can't explain that. I don't believe that morality is objective, nor do I think that it is even a sensible notion.

But we don't need to appeal to philosophy to know that killing children is evil. It's obviously evil and any philosophy that comes to a different conclusion is obviously flawed.
How so? Explain why your opinion is superior to the Spartans who threw children that they deemed unfit over cliffs? Where do you get the notion that it is evil? What is "evil" and how can it possibly exist in a secular world view. How is "evil" anything more than opinion?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How so? Explain why your opinion is superior to the Spartans who threw children that they deemed unfit over cliffs? Where do you get the notion that it is evil? What is "evil" and how can it possibly exist in a secular world view. How is "evil" anything more than opinion?

You redacted a large portion of what I said. And as if that wasn't enough to disinterest me in your opinion, you now start talking like a psychopath. I tend to steer clear of those who don't find murder to be obviously evil. If both you and your God don't see anything wrong with murder, I don't understand why you think I'd want to join.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How so? Explain why your opinion is superior to the Spartans who threw children that they deemed unfit over cliffs? Where do you get the notion that it is evil? What is "evil" and how can it possibly exist in a secular world view. How is "evil" anything more than opinion?

I'll take a crack at that.

Moral evil is anything that increases harm, reduces wellbeing, or does both. Harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable, necessitating no appeal to opinion, so that is what I use as a standard.

However, that is only the "is" side of the equation. To get to an "ought" - that is, why ought someone adopt that standard - that will always come down to a value judgement. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

And that is true whether Yahweh exists or not. Even granting that he does, you cannot name any "is" statement pertaining to moral behavior and supposedly derived from Yahweh - "murder is sinful", for example - and get an "ought" from it, without including some kind of value judgement. Though you're welcome to try, and fail, if you want to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's like saying you have to fly in a vessel invented by the Wright brothers because versions developed with iterative improvements are knock-offs.
No, it's not really like that, NV. You've misunderstood what I've intended to imply. What I'm implying is that you're assuming interation holds in all cases for all ideas; I'm saying it may on only in some cases, maybe a lot of cases. But where the Euthyphro Dilemma is concerned, you're yanking an old 4x6 frame off of one picture, dusting it off, repainting it, and then claiming that you can use it on a newer 11x14 picture----simply because you've decided that "Hey, a frame refurbished is still an appropriate frame!"

Yes, let's restrict ourselves to what may have been said in a document preserved from thousands of years ago. By no means should we use our own intelligence to ensure the argument holds up.

That's just the thing, NV, like some other philosophers and/or theologians, I HAVE used my own iterated intelligence and, through various assessments and reconsiderations, I've come to see that the adoption, transference and reapplication of Plato's Socratic Euthyphronic Dilemma DOESN'T hold up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0