Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,581
15,741
Colorado
✟432,811.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The feeling is a cognitive assessment. Sure there are physiological conditions but they don't show that what one person's perception of hunger or sad or happy or any other subjective experience is the same or can even be assessed at all. We can't say any of the feelings are shared because we can't know what another person is feeling, we can only make physiological measurements and they are not feelings.
If absolute proof is required, then no, we cannot say one person's perception of hunger is anything like another person's.

But if we're just looking for whats most reasonable to believe, then its fine to propose that people who speak about hunger using the same metaphors, who share almost identical physiology, who satisfy the hunger the same way..... are speaking about pretty much the same experience.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kyrani
Upvote 0

Vap841

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2021
431
252
54
East Coast
✟39,498.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Not quite. The word I have difficulty with is 'settings'. I do not think children are born with a built-in morality, as you appear to claim.
It’s easy to imagine many situations where a bunch of children would be morally disturbed at the same exact things, “They watched in horror as…” fill in the blank. If there are no moral norms for children then it wouldn’t make sense how we so generally speak of children being innocent, or how heartbreaking it is when something causes a child to loose their innocence.

‘Settings’ are so much simpler for other species than for us because we are so varied in cultural upbringings, and individual upbringings. Looking at us when we’re very young is very helpful. Dogs and honey badgers aren’t pulled into 100 different directions like humans are, other species wouldn’t even have a concept such as trying to rediscover their lost innocence, or moments of contemplation about harmful indoctrination that may have led them astray, etc.
If they did there would be no need for moral leadership for them - by parents or teachers.
Well humans are the most helpless and needy species with an extremely long infancy stage. But our dependency on excessive guidance doesn’t mean that we don’t have an innate moral code, it just means that we’re extremely vulnerable to having that moral code tweaked. It’s not all nature, or all nurture, but a combination of both.

To study a core of moral commonalities in people would just be more complicated than other species, but they are there. You would need to consider so many more factors. Raccoons don’t tend to come from homes with abusive alcoholic dads vs homes with Ward Cleaver dads, they don’t tend to get indoctrinated by the state, etc.
Of course there are norms of behaviour, but that leads us nowhere in this discussion.
A person’s morality can be seen in their behaviors.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,834
3,410
✟244,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As I said, I tend to believe that morality is a human invention, developed to maintain harmony in the complex social structures human beings have created. I think it follows from this that morality has changed over the period of human existence as human societies have moved from family groups of related individuals to larger units in which strangers have to get along together. This suggests an explanation for the apparent differences in societies posters have observed.

It seems to me that the transition from villages to cities would alter some harmony rules while leaving others intact. As long as some of the rules ordering harmony are stable, the possibility of objective morality as manifest in cultures remains, no?

(It is striking, though, that these differences are on the margins rather than central tenets of morality. The Biblical Ten Commandments are not unique to Judeo-Christian traditions.)

Is that a sign of objective morality?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Lord Jesus had something of an advantage. He is God in human form. I don't know that God is interested in replicating himself. Would parents prefer to replicate themselves or have children who are individuals in their own right? Personally, one of me is more than enough. My son and I have a lot in common, but he is also an individual in his own right.
Isn’t there supposed to be a lot more to God than the desire to not sin? Isn’t he also all knowing, all powerful, perfect and a bunch of other stuff? I ain’t talking about all of that other stuff, just the desire to not sin. Why couldn’t he make mankind without the desire to sin?
Adam could have been like Jesus. The tree of life was freely available. He chose to listen to Satan and reject God's word. If there is no way of choosing the wrong then it is not a truly free choice. That's why God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden in the first place.
What good is having a choice if you get punished for making the wrong choice? In my country they call that “forced behavior”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebecca12
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
God’s moral standard is fact, it is reality because it does not differ from one person...

Neither does mine. I don't think that something is moral for one person, yet immoral for the next person.

...to the next nor is it subject to opinion.

Except it literally is God's opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There are two reasons that I can see.
One is that different cultures, races, tribes etc., have different concerns, especially where survival is concerned. So for instance inter-racial marriages may be frowned up or even not tolerated where the country is small, a monoculture and especially where there are concerns about the continuation of its cultural identity. However these don't really affect basic morality.
The other is where inhumane people have gain control over religious organizations or politics. So for instance the Hindu priests insisted that women who were widowed had to be burnt alive. Even today they suffer a social death.
"In much of Indian society—across caste and religion—a widow is often perceived by family members to be a burden and sexually threatening toward marriages. "
The ongoing tragedy of India’s widows - Women’s Media Center (womensmediacenter.com)
I highlighted the word "often". You will find that it is not the people in general that are against the widow. It is inhumane people, who spread fear in one form or another to cause others, especially people, who are ignorant or haven't thought the matter through well enough that are sucked in and thus may think and/or behave immorally.

By what standard do you proclaim their behavior immoral?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,613
7,377
Dallas
✟888,452.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Neither does mine. I don't think that something is moral for one person, yet immoral for the next person.



Except it literally is God's opinion.

I guess we’ll see how relevant His opinion is on judgement day. Then His “opinion” becomes a reality for all men.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I guess we’ll see how relevant His opinion is on judgement day. Then His “opinion” becomes a reality for all men.

That's assuming your view of religion is correct.

And even if it is, God's opinion will still be subjective.
 
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

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,173
5,686
68
Pennsylvania
✟791,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, I think there is morality of the sort which even evil people can understand, and we can find a lot of such moral principles written in God's word.

But God Himself has standards which He goes by. For example, He has His overall purpose of having many children who are conformed to the image of Jesus; and so He works all things in accordance to this purpose and standard which guides Him Himself. And in prayer we seek to be guided according to all which guides God, Himself, though we might not understand all He is going by > we submit to God in His peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

In this peace we are guided according to more and better than what unbelievers can understand . . . and what can be better ways than we ourselves can understand.

There is being guided as family, versus only as individuals. A lot of human level morality which humans can understand is only about each individual and one's own rights. I don't remember anything about living in a family way, in the American Constitution, by the way. Rights and obligations seem to be only or mainly about each one for one's own self. But God's word is very into relational morals > including >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing" > in Philippians 2:13-16. By the way, if you look at the purpose for this rule > "that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault" > the purpose of how God means this rule is so we become like Jesus > conformed to the image of Jesus . . . "that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (in Romans 8:29)! So, there are these reasons for God's morals of relating > to become like Jesus . . . as His own family. So, this is an example of how I say God's word has standards for God and us, about how to be and about family . . . not only practical action morals.

Arguing can be very anti-love; yet we don't see laws and church morals, much, I think, against arguing, or delineating which arguing is good and which is bad. And societal and church culture regulations can be more individual, it seems to me.

But we can relate in the really morally good way, by submitting to how God is guiding us while we are relating and communicating as His family.
You say God has standards which he goes by? Do you think God does what is good, because that is the standard? Does he do good because it is an objectively good thing for him to do?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,679
51
✟314,979.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not when you understand His objective. The purpose of this world is to cultivate and separate those who would choose to love Him from those who would choose to reject Him of their own free will. In order for love to be genuine it must derive from free will otherwise it has no value. It’s this random variable of free will that is the source of sin. People are free to choose because it has to be that way.
That was not the point I was making. It’s still there if you want to re read my post.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,679
51
✟314,979.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I see value in qualitative research.
Qualitative Study - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
However as far as scientists are concerned it is not objective. This is all the argument with anecdotal evidence.
At university I was taught "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". This is a hard line attitude to be sure, but that is what is considered to be objective. An objective observer gathering direct evidence. The testimony of others, no matter how nobel a research project, is still not considered objective evidence.

To give you an example.
I have been doing research on cancer. My observations are not done in the conventional scientific way. I had been using insight meditation to observe cells within my own body back in the times when I had cancers. None of this evidence would be worth anything as far as biomedical scientists are concerned. However in looking through the biomedical scientific literature I have been able to find independent evidence that supports 100% what I had observed. Without the objective science, my qualitative research would not stand up to criticism. This is the difference.
I’ve just awoken. Can you simplify that point you are trying to make?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,757
965
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,945.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can stand on a street corner and proclaim myself to be the moral law giver, and all who disobey my moral laws will suffer the consequences after they die. My words will have as much merit as your words proclaiming your God saying this.
What I am talking about is not my word or your words but a truth independent of all humans.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,757
965
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,945.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Except it literally is God's opinion.
Thats where your going wrong in making God and morality a human understanding. God cannot have an opinion on morality as though morality is seperate to him. That would make him mortal. God is morality. God is love, kindness, justice, honesty ect. God is the Giver of moral laws to humans (the subject). But he doesnt give morality to us. It is because he is moral he illuminates morality to us.
 
Last edited:
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

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,716
6,139
Massachusetts
✟586,471.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Does he do good because it is an objectively good thing for him to do?
Because He is good and good is all He is capable of doing.

"No one is good but One, that is, God," Jesus says, in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and in Luke 18:19.

And "there is no variation or shadow of turning" in Him (James 1:17); so He can not change from being good and doing good.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thats where your going wrong in making God and morality a human understanding. God cannot have an opinion on morality as though morality is seperate to him. That would make him mortal. God is morality. God is love, kindness, justice, honesty ect. God is the Giver of moral laws to humans (the subject). But he doesnt give morality to us. It is because he is moral he illuminates morality to us.

Being MORTAL and being MORAL are two completely different things.

Also, your claim that God is moral makes no sense. It seems you want to suggest that God is morally GOOD, but by what criteria do you determine that?
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,716
6,139
Massachusetts
✟586,471.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is because he is moral he illuminates morality to us.
but by what criteria do you determine that?
I don't think morality is a main focus of God. But He can use it to help bring about His ultimate purpose.

He Himself is capable of much greater good, than what humans are capable of doing even if we act perfectly morally.

There are cases in the Bible, where God uses what is evil to bring about much greater good than humans were doing while trying to be moral.
 
Upvote 0

Kyrani

Active Member
Sep 6, 2021
110
18
75
Cairns
✟14,383.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Widowed
I said WITHOUT the desire to sin. Again; why couldn’t God make us without the desire to sin?
God could make us without the desire to sin, but then we would be mere puppets. And to be correct it is not so much a desire to sin but the desire to do some sort of action that we want to do. If we don't take all aspects into account, if we act mindlessly or hurriedly or even selfishly to some extent, without giving enough thought to the consequences of our actions, then we may "get it wrong", which is really what sin in about.
Transgression on the other hand is a desire to do wrong, to do even very hateful, harmful acts willfully, but to do that one has to have destroyed their conscience and thus have no empathy, no love.
 
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

Kyrani

Active Member
Sep 6, 2021
110
18
75
Cairns
✟14,383.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Widowed
By what standard do you proclaim their behavior immoral?
The standard we have (ie., those who are humane) is love. This is our spiritual connectivity that gives us the ability to feel for others, to be happy in their good times and to be unhappy and wanting to help them in their bad times.
 
Upvote 0