Is there Objective Morality?

[Aussie Pete]

If the Muslims are right then I get to hang by my
hair in eternal fire.
You think you are right, and I get something else.
Is there a Pascal- wager to cover both?

There is the truth and lies. There is one way only God and that is through Jesus. That is the truth. If you reject God's love, mercy and grace in this life, you will not get another opportunity in the next. My advice is to ask God to show you the truth - that's if you really want to know. Most people prefer to live in unreality and self deception. You know, the one that says, "I am a good person". No, you are not. No one is good, not even Mother Teresa.

Jesus is a real Person, He really lived 2,000 years ago, died and rose again to save you from God's righteous anger. You, like everyone else, deserve to go to hell. God loves you enough to want to save you from that. He gave His only Son, Jesus, to die so that you may live. Jesus was willing to die for you. Will you live for Him?

 

[durangodawood]

...Jesus is a real Person, He really lived 2,000 years ago, died and rose again to save you from God's righteous anger. You, like everyone else, deserve to go to hell. God loves you enough to want to save you from that. He gave His only Son, Jesus, to die so that you may live. Jesus was willing to die for you. Will you live for Him?

I doubt Estrid deserves to go to hell. At least not from what I can tell of her here.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I doubt Estrid deserves to go to hell. At least not from what I can tell of her here.

It's not a matter of "deserves" or not. Every human being is born with a sin nature. There are nice sinners and nasty, there are noble sinners and crooked sinners, but all sin and fall short of God's glory. All mankind is born dead in trespass and sin. That's the way it is, like it or not. You can accept God gracious remedy or you can go to a lost eternity. There is no other option.

 

[Astrid]

There is the truth and lies. There is one way only God and that is through Jesus. That is the truth. If you reject God's love, mercy and grace in this life, you will not get another opportunity in the next. My advice is to ask God to show you the truth - that's if you really want to know. Most people prefer to live in unreality and self deception. You know, the one that says, "I am a good person". No, you are not. No one is good, not even Mother Teresa.

Jesus is a real Person, He really lived 2,000 years ago, died and rose again to save you from God's righteous anger. You, like everyone else, deserve to go to hell. God loves you enough to want to save you from that. He gave His only Son, Jesus, to die so that you may live. Jesus was willing to die for you. Will you live for Him?

I've no doubt of your sincere belief.

 

[Whyayeman]

Can we get back on topic, please?

 

[Kyrani]

Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

For something to be objective it must not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering the evidence seen.
Morality is a system of principles about right and wrong.
I believe there definitely is objective morality.
The evidence is in
1. the existence of empathy and the fact that there is such a thing as a conscience. Without a conscience one cannot have empathy.
and
2. how that empathy/ conscience is destroyed when a person choses to become inhumane.

God made each conscious being / soul with love. Love is really a spiritual connectivity because it allows us to feel for others, to be aware of their status whether happy or sad, healthy or suffering. Empathy is based on this love. Those who are humane have empathy. That means that they feel for others and want to reach out and help them where they see the other in some danger or alleviate their suffering if possible. This is observable fact. There are countless cases to be seen where even a stranger may endanger their own life to help another person in need.

This condition of empathy can be destroyed.
I have been told, and I have also seen evidence myself, that a person who choses to become inhumane first destroys their conscience and that really entails destroying the spiritual connection with others, so they have no empathy. My late husband came out of the closet several years before he passed away and told me that he was inhumane or in his exact word "evil".

In answering some of my questions he revealed that to become inhumane a person must do harm to others, both animal and human in order to go through a process of, what he saw as, "development". He said at first one does harm and feels indifferent. But the person needs to continue to do harm until they get pleasure from seeing the pain and suffering of the other. Then, he said, the process is complete. And I have seen that once a person goes through this process and becomes inhumane there is no turning back. They have crossed an abyss from whence there is no return. I strongly suspect that this is creating a disconnect between them and others spiritually. So there is no more love. They only hate.

Thus having a conscience and empathy is evidence that there is objective morality

 

[Ken-1122]

For something to be objective it must not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering the evidence seen.
Morality is a system of principles about right and wrong.
I believe there definitely is objective morality.
The evidence is in
1. the existence of empathy and the fact that there is such a thing as a conscience. Without a conscience one cannot have empathy.
and
2. how that empathy/ conscience is destroyed when a person choses to become inhumane.

Okay; First you define objective as not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. (which I agree)
Then you define morality as a system of principles about right and wrong (which I agree)
Then you attempt to provide evidence of objective morality by pointing to the fact that we have empathy, and a conscious. Empathy and a conscious are examples of personal feelings and opinions; which is subjective not objective. If morality were objective, you would be able to demonstrate all moral situations as right or wrong just as you can demonstrate math equations as correct or incorrect.
Morality is subjective, not objective.

 

[durangodawood]

....Then you attempt to provide evidence of objective morality by pointing to the fact that we have empathy, and a conscious. Empathy and a conscious are examples of personal feelings and opinions; which is subjective not objective....

The experience of empathy and a conscience is subjective. But it is an objective fact that we possess empathy and a conscience.

 

[stevevw]

If theres an objective morality, then there has to be an objective moral law giver. Just like in the secular world we have laws and everyone accepts that braking those laws has consequences then a moral law system beyond this world will work pretty much the same.

In some ways having a moral laws and a moral law giver beyond this world is understandable in that people can get away with being bad and causing injustice and suffering. So having consequence for immoral behaviour beyond the limits of this world that catches these people is true justice. It makes sense also in that we all seek a greater truth for justice beyond what this world can offer.

 

[Whyayeman]

The experience of empathy and a conscience is subjective. But it is an objective fact that we possess empathy and a conscience.

Our only direct knowledge of empathy and conscience is through experiencing them. There are people who do not experience either - psychopaths, for example.

It makes sense also in that we all seek a greater truth for justice beyond what this world can offer.

Again, not everybody seeks a truth.

It is a puzzle.

 

[stevevw]

Again, not everybody seeks a truth.
It is a puzzle.

Of course everyone seeks truth whether they like it or known it. You just spoke a truth that " not everyone seeks truth". We cannot help but seek and speak truths. The point is is there an ultimate truth and what is it. I suggest that we all know that truth and while we live and interact we are seeking that ultimate truth as we negociate and argue about what is the case, what is right and wrong and what is the ultimate reality.

We are constantly refining truth. We wouldnt do that if we didnt think there was a greater truth. We know what the truth is in most situations but things often get in the way and thats when we introduce our versions of truth which is really another way of rationaling things.

So the fact that we act like there is a greater truth or ultimate truth despite claiming the opposite shows that this ultimate truth we seek is an objective one outside ourselves.

 

[durangodawood]

Our only direct knowledge of empathy and conscience is through experiencing them. There are people who do not experience either - psychopaths, for example.

There's lot of animal sensibilities that we have no direct evidence for, but the accumulation of behavior observation as well as neurological correlations makes for some quite strong indirect evidence.

Can we say we have direct evidence that anyone feels hunger? Should we remove experiences-hunger from the list of objective facts about humans and similar animals?

 

[Kyrani]

Empathy and a conscious are examples of personal feelings and opinions; which is subjective not objective. If morality were objective, you would be able to demonstrate all moral situations as right or wrong just as you can demonstrate math equations as correct or incorrect.
Morality is subjective, not objective.

I disagree that empathy and conscience are subjective. They both arise out of the quality of our soul/ conscious being and not our embodiment or the physical experiences that we have through our embodiment.
A conscience is the result of our spiritual connectedness. We suffer a bad conscience if we do something wrong. That is not a choice or anything we can control. We certainly can take measures to correct the wrong and recover our good conscience feeling. However our conscience is a spiritual compass that helps us / guides us in making good decision and actions. If it was subjective then we wouldn't get a bad conscience if we did something wrong.
Also empathy, I tried to explain, is a quality that is also based on our spiritual connectedness or love. It is not a simple choice of are we happy with another's good fortune or good health etc., and are we moved to help if we see the other in some sort of trouble and needing help. We react due to our spiritual connectedness.
So both empathy and conscience, our moral compass are evidence that morality is objective.

 

[Kyrani]

Can we say we have direct evidence that anyone feels hunger? Should we remove experiences-hunger from the list of objective facts about humans and similar animals?

Science fails when it comes to subjective experience as in "feeling hunger" or "feeling hungry". There are no objective tests that can be done to show that "the meat robot" has any subjective experience as far as science is concerned. In science we can only observe that if someone doesn't eat, be they human or animal, then they die as a result. We see that in starvation. But we can't test for a feeling.

 

[Whyayeman]

We suffer a bad conscience if we do something wrong.

Some, probably most of us, do. Just not everybody.

So both empathy and conscience, our moral compass are evidence that morality is objective.

I don't think this follows. It is not clear to me that empathy or conscience are objective. I am tending to the view that they are socially mediated - taught, basically. There are examples on these forums of people whose consciences make them utterly miserable about trivialities that most of us would shrug our shoulders about. I think too often an over-zealous upbringing can bring about warped sensitivities; I suggest this is evidence that conscience is inculcated by parents.

 

[Kyrani]

I suggest this is evidence that conscience is inculcated by parents.

No way. I was born into a family of psychopaths and I am humane through and through. They didn't have a chance to corrupt me one iota. And they have all hated me for it.

 

[Kyrani]

Some, probably most of us, do. Just not everybody.

I agree here. Not everyone. Those who are inhumane have no conscience. Like none. But that is because they destroyed it willfully.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

When morality is defined by God it is objective.

 

[Kyrani]

When morality is defined by God it is objective.

Where is it defined by God?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where is it defined by God?

In the Bible thru His commandments.