Is there Objective Morality?

But the reality is that down through the ages we, the human race, have deteriorated because among us there is a growing number of inhumane people. I would estimate that the inhumane subculture worldwide is around 1.2 to 1.5 billion. None of them are corrupted by sin nor are they redeemable or repairable by Grace. They have destroyed their own souls.
You can see here Prof. Steven Pinker believing, based on fossil evidence, that the early cave men, cave humans were far more violent that the humans of today.
A History of Violence: Steven Pinker at TEDxNewEngland - YouTube
What he doesn't see is the violence of today is not obvious physical harm. It is extremely underhanded. The foul game play utilizes a concealed threat and ideas, most often mentally presented, which takes closely related people. And the damage suffered can be counted in disease. You will find that almost all, if not all diseases have a fight or flight response involved. This cannot arise out of simple fear.
Eight million die of cancer every year world wide, almost double that of cardiovascular diseases. The WHO estimates, 16.7 million. We are far worse off today than we ever were in tribal cultures.

Larnievc said:

I’ve just awoken. Can you simplify that point you are trying to make?

Click to expand...

I don't know how well I can clarify my point. With my method, which was qualitative, I observed and tried to characterize what was happening at the cellular level, it was hard to be wholly objective. but I did come up with observations that helped me overcome the cancers. So I had a benefit. However this is not accepted by science as it stands.

In the medical research we find two vastly different lines of research with respect to cancer.
One is trying to make a case for cancer as abnormal cells dividing out of control. But to do that they are using transgenic mice. That means their DNA has been modified to give a desired result when certain conditions apply. I don't see this as legitimate science, but I can see what they are trying to do.

The other line of research, which in fact is being played down by many biomedical scientists, involves findings that without cancer stem cells, there is no cancer. Cancer stem cells are not some aberration because they contain cell markers that are the same as embryonic stem cell markers and those of ordinary body cells as well. In this research cancer is seen as an abnormal or rogue organ because it has the characteristics of an organ. Why does that happen?
The point is that the research in the cancer stem cell theory is using many case studies and making a quantitative assessment. Whereas in my observations I was always looking at a single case and trying to characterize what I observed.
Now there is merit in doing a qualitative study because I have been able to come up with a hypothesis, maybe I could even call it a theory, because what I have seen in the biomedical literature verifies my findings. However it is not considered science if there is no quantitative research. So without the science that I have found on cancer stem cells, it would not be taken seriously.

To elaborate further, my theory is that cancer is stem cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited in the body owing to false ideas/ perceptions at a time when there are issues that give rise to ongoing somatic reactivity, mostly emotional reactivity. So the body mistakes the ideas that indicate possible harm as real and thus tries to build a barrier. However it is a bad move because the ideas are false. In fact there is underhanded foul game play behind cancer. I discovered all this doing a qualitative study. The scientists on the other hand have done quantitative studies trying to make sense of what they see. But where science is concerned the only valid research has to be quantitative. They see this as the only way to be objective. The problem here is that science only wants to acknowledge the physical and not the metaphysical.

Kylie said:

Being MORTAL and being MORAL are two completely different things.

Click to expand...

Yes I pointed out that God is not mortal as in a human being subject to worldly thinking and the constraints or this physical realm. Being mortal is related to morality in that we cannot apply our understanding of morality to an immortal being that doesnt experience a physical death.

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?

Click to expand...

If there is an objective morality then it logically follows that there needs to be a moral law giver that is not of this physical world and nonhuman therefore (immortal) and transcendent. Arguments along these lines have been made (the moral argument for God).

Therefore you are claiming that only you know morality

stevevw said:

Yes I pointed out that God is not mortal as in a human being subject to worldly thinking and the constraints or this physical realm. Being mortal is related to morality in that we cannot apply our understanding of morality to an immortal being that doesnt experience a physical death.

Click to expand...

I disagree. "We", in essence are a conscious beings and that means we are eternally existent. Only our physical garment is shed in passing away from this physical realm. We are made in the image of God.
The Greek word εἰκών (transliterated eikón) means an image, but I don't understand the Greek meaning that it is the image of God in the sense of what God looks like. Rather the word makes sense to me as the image that God had, in The Mind of God. God made us in accordance with an image that God upheld in the Mind, the realm within which the physical is brought into being. We could say that God chose the information for the physical realm, both animate and inanimate, and upholding that information in the Divine Consciousness the physical reality came into being and is maintained in its existence.

As we become more aware of our spiritual nature, especially in an enlightenment experience, where we experience our union with the Divine, we understand the true meaning of morality because it pertains to our spiritual nature. We are made in love, which is our spiritual connectivity. This is the basis of morality and ethics. Our connection with others enables us to have empathy, to feel and rejoice in the joys of others and to feel and share the sorrows of others and want to help them overcome those sorrows. And even more fundamentally, it enables us to have a conscience, which is our spiritual compass.

Ken-1122 said:

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?

What good is having a choice if you get punished for making the wrong choice? In my country they call that “forced behavior”.

Click to expand...

Again you misunderstand. If someone drinks poison, they will get sick and likely die. Now if there is a label on the container that says "Poison, this could kill you" then you ignore it at your peril. God did not say, "If you eat from the wrong tree, I will kill you". He said that they would die. God is not the problem. Adam made a dumb decision to ally himself to Satan and reject God. So Adam died spiritually. Again, God did not kill Adam.

Jump off a cliff and see what happens. Should we level every hill and mountain so people can avoid consequences of their actions? God made man without the desire to sin. Adam did not have to disobey God. It was Adam's disobedience that brought sin into the human race. Adam did that in spite of being warned of the consequences.

com7fy8 said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. Good is not a thing from outside himself —not "a thing with which he must comply, even if he can't help himself but to do it". It is not an external principle. It is not as though he would do otherwise, if he could. Nor is it as though he must CHOOSE to do good.

If 'Good' is only our use of the idea, if the notion is only ours, then when we want to say 'he can only do good', we are bringing him down to our level (economy) of behavior, in which we have conflicting natures. God has no such thing.

When, throughout Scripture, things are said that sound like that, they are anthropomorphisms, said the way they are for the sake of our understanding. For example, "Mercy triumphs over justice": This doesn't mean that God's mercy and justice are at odds, but that (for us) what justice should have done to us, is deflected onto Christ, because of God's mercy. Mercy overruled, but did not undo, justice.

Good is what it is, because God is good. Not the other way around, that God is good because what he does is always good.

This is turning into a thread about the nature of God. There must be room for such a discussion on one of these forums.

It is not very useful here. Perhaps there is nothing more to be said on the subject of human morality, 2,500 years after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

com7fy8 said:

I don't think morality is a main focus of God. But He can use it to help bring about His ultimate purpose.

Click to expand...

Which is...?

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

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of this?

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.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be even more morally good to accomplish the same goal without using evil?

stevevw said:

Yes I pointed out that God is not mortal as in a human being subject to worldly thinking and the constraints or this physical realm. Being mortal is related to morality in that we cannot apply our understanding of morality to an immortal being that doesnt experience a physical death.

Click to expand...

I don't think that our view of morality is dictated by our limited lifespans.

If there is an objective morality then it logically follows that there needs to be a moral law giver that is not of this physical world and nonhuman therefore (immortal) and transcendent.

Click to expand...

Why? There are lots of objective things that have no entity to control them. It is an objective fact that any point on the circumference of a circle is the same distance from the center of that circle as any other point on the circumference, but that doesn't mean that circles need someone making sure they all fit this condition.

Arguments along these lines have been made (the moral argument for God).

Click to expand...

And I've always found those arguments to be weak.

Therefore you are claiming that only you know morality

Click to expand...

Since I believe morality to be subjective, I'd agree with you. Only I know MY morality. Each person has their own.

stevevw said:

What I am talking about is not my word or your words but a truth independent of all humans.

Click to expand...

If you wanna believe it that fine, but why would you expect anybody else to believe your empty claim over mine?

Kyrani said:

God could make us without the desire to sin, but then we would be mere puppets.

Click to expand...

Will everybody be puppets in Heaven? If so, perhaps being a puppet isn’t so bad.

Kyrani said:

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.

Click to expand...

If this never happens in Heaven, it doesn’t have to happen here on Earth.

Kyrani said:

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.

Click to expand...

So if I love the neighbors wife, it's perfectly moral to act on that?

Aussie Pete said:

Again you misunderstand. If someone drinks poison, they will get sick and likely die. Now if there is a label on the container that says "Poison, this could kill you" then you ignore it at your peril. God did not say, "If you eat from the wrong tree, I will kill you". He said that they would die. God is not the problem. Adam made a dumb decision to ally himself to Satan and reject God. So Adam died spiritually. Again, God did not kill Adam.

Click to expand...

Suppose I built a big playpen for my 2 little children with lots of toys in it, then I put a loaded gun right in the middle of the play pen, but I told my children they could play with all of the toys in the play pen, but they were not to play with the gun. Would you consider me a loving and responsible parent?
Suppose at a distance, I see my enemy approach my children with evil intent, and I do nothing. Then I see my enemy attempt to cajole my children into playing with the gun; still I do nothing. At first my children resist my enemy because of my instructions, but eventually my adult enemy is able to trick my innocent children into playing Russian Roulette with the loaded gun and I sit back and do nothing but watch them die. For me to take the attitude that because my children disobeyed me, they deserved to die is IMO absurd. Do you agree?

Aussie Pete said:

Jump off a cliff and see what happens. Should we level every hill and mountain so people can avoid consequences of their actions? God made man without the desire to sin. Adam did not have to disobey God. It was Adam's disobedience that brought sin into the human race.

Click to expand...

No; God made only Adam without the desire to sin. Why didn't he make everybody else without this desire as well? Why did sin have to enter the world due to the actions of one man? How come sin couldn't remain with Adam, and die when he died? If Adam broke his leg, would all of his children be born with broken legs? Suppose Adam poked his eye out? Would all the rest of mankind be born with their eye poked out? No; they would be born whole! So why should Adam's sin be passed to his seed when nothing else Adam did would be passed down this way?
Again; why didn't God make mankind without the desire to sin?

Ken-1122 said:

If you wanna believe it that fine, but why would you expect anybody else to believe your empty claim over mine?

Click to expand...

That’s because it’s not an empty claim. For example I notice that you correct people when they misrepresent your argument or position. So by doing that you are implicitly saying that everyone that debates you should be honest and not misrepresent your arguments.

That is fair enough and would suggest that this is a common position for everyone to take. Otherwise we could not have coherent arguments/debates. Without that inherent honesty someone could just lie or keep twisting your position and we could never find the truth of the matter.

That’s the other inherent value in arguments. We are trying to find a truth. Not your truth or mine but some truth out there for whatever issue we debate. Another truth is that when we make a claim or object that someone is doing wrong, that some nation or government or tribe in a far off land is being brutal, abusive and denying human rights we are putting a truth out there in the universe that they are doing moral wrong.

We are not just saying we think you are wrong or that they have a right to do what they do because morality is subjective or relative. We are saying "No" what you are doing is wrong regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

So these values are independent of you and me and cannot be denied. They are objective moral values.

Kylie said:

I don't think that our view of morality is dictated by our limited lifespans.

Click to expand...

It's not our limited lifespan but rather our limited knowledge and understanding. If God is immortal and lives in a realm that has no death and God is all knowing and the creator of this worldly realm we live in then He must be on another level that we cannot apply our understanding of morality too. He is not a subject like us but the creator of the subject. He does not have a moral opinion because he is morality that we are trying to understanding and find truth with.

Why? There are lots of objective things that have no entity to control them. It is an objective fact that any point on the circumference of a circle is the same distance from the center of that circle as any other point on the circumference, but that doesn't mean that circles need someone making sure they all fit this condition.

Click to expand...

This is a separate argument for moral objectivity. The objective moral argument is that just like science where we can find objective truths regardless of peoples personal opinions of them we can find moral objective truths regardless of peoples opinion.

For example you implicitly expect people to be honest in debates and not misrepresent your arguments just like the ones you are putting forward. So we could say that honesty in debates is a necessary requirement just like any point on the circumference of a circle is the same distance from the centre of that circle.

Someone may argue that it is not the same distance but in attempting to measure it finds the fact it is. Just like someone may argue that honesty is not needed to have a coherent debate and then finds when honesty is taken out of the equation things become incoherent.

The idea that if there are objective moral values then there must be a moral lawgiver is a separate but also supportive one to proving there is objective morality. But one not needed to prove objective morality.

But one could say that just like there needs to be a moral lawgiver because morals are objective (outside the subject humans). A similar logic can be used for mathematical facts. Having mathematical equations being so perfectly aligned in equations including in the universe would imply there is intelligence behind the universe and world.

And I've always found those arguments to be weak.

Click to expand...

If you really understand them they are pretty powerful as with the above logic.

Since I believe morality to be subjective, I'd agree with you. Only I know MY morality. Each person has their own.

Click to expand...

As mentioned there are certain moral values that stand independent of personal opinion. A person may have their own opinion but it can be proven they are morally wrong. Honesty as a moral value in debates is one example. There are moral values in lived experience we cannot deny. Despite people claiming their personal view and that there are no objective morals they cannot help but acknowledge the moral truth in lived experience.

Kyrani said:

I observed and tried to characterize what was happening at the cellular level, it was hard to be wholly objective.

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like contentment analysis. What did you conclude from your observations about the cellular activity?

stevevw said:

The objective moral argument is that just like science where we can find objective truths regardless of peoples personal opinions of them we can find moral objective truths regardless of peoples opinion.

Click to expand...

But this is the very point at issue. It seems that actually this is very difficult. This difficulty makes it very tempting to shunt it off into a religious siding and leave it there as god's doing. Yet if there is a properly universal, objectively observable moral code then any deity would have to be subject to it. I think this issue is a theological one which has been disputed over the centuries.

Theological arguments are meaningless to those of us who do not believe there is any divine or supernatural being.

I still lean towards morality being culturally transmitted through generations. This does not necessitate the 'tabula rasa' proposed by Rousseau; there could be an evolutionary element too. It occurs to me that moral codes might be passed on like language. Human babies appear to have an innate capacity to learn language; the language they actually learn is the one they grow up immersed in.

Perhaps the innate capacity to become moral is present at birth; the morality which actually develops is the one children are immersed in. Now we are saddled with the problem of the origin of that capacity.

Whyayeman said:

But this is the very point at issue. It seems that actually this is very difficult. This difficulty makes it very tempting to shunt it off into a religious siding and leave it there as god's doing.

Click to expand...

Not really. We can argue objective morality without using God or any transcendental being as a cause of moral truths. We just have to establish that the moral values do not come from humans (the subject) and are independent of them and stand regardless of personal opinions.

I have given an arguemnet for this (lived experience) which shows that people live like there are objective morals independent of them regardless of what they claim and in fact even despite what they say in contradicting their subjective position.

Yet if there is a properly universal, objectively observable moral code then any deity would have to be subject to it. I think this issue is a theological one which has been disputed over the centuries.

Click to expand...

First objective morality is not necessarily universal as in a fixed standard regardless of circumstances. Second when you say universal what do you mean. If its universal as far as we humans understand from our worldview then that is the known universe. But God or other gos you would expect are of a realm beyond our universe and thus not subject to it but above or beyond it.

For the Christian God he is not subject to the moral laws because he is the morals that make up the laws. You have to think about the importance of this destinction. God doesnt command morality like love, kindness, honesty, generosity, faithfulness ect. He is by nature kindness, honesty, generosity, faithfulness ect.

Theological arguments are meaningless to those of us who do not believe there is any divine or supernatural being.

Click to expand...

That is why we can make a non-theological arguemnet for objective morality based on the same logic that is used to justify scientific objective facts.

I still lean towards morality being culturally transmitted through generations. This does not necessitate the 'tabula rasa' proposed by Rousseau; there could be an evolutionary element too. It occurs to me that moral codes might be passed on like language. Human babies appear to have an innate capacity to learn language; the language they actually learn is the one they grow up immersed in.

Click to expand...

Culture has an influence on morality but I think in all cultures there is a fundelmental common knowledge of certain moral truths. But I think moral relativity is self defeating and unreal. The idea that different cultures have different sets of morals cannot be practcied in reality.

There is this conflicting perception that for example we in the west must allow for different cultural views on morality and cannot judge them if they have opposing morals we think wrong. Yet at the same time come out and condemn that culture for doing something we think is horrible and wrong.

When people state that a person or culture does something we can tell is fundelmentally wrong they are not just speaking their view but are speaking a moral truth into the universe that we all know of.

Perhaps the innate capacity to become moral is present at birth; the morality which actually develops is the one children are immersed in. Now we are saddled with the problem of the origin of that capacity.

Click to expand...

I thin all humans know of right and wrong through their conscience. But a child is under developed in this regard and doesnt know right from wrong until around the age of 10 to 14 according to research. They are at least not legally accountable until 12 or 14 anyway.

But as adults we know morality. That is why we see people who deny responsibility for wrong or claim that what they did was not wrong often suffer and we see the effects come out in some way as they try to live with the guilt.

stevevw said:

That’s because it’s not an empty claim. For example I notice that you correct people when they misrepresent your argument or position. So by doing that you are implicitly saying that everyone that debates you should be honest and not misrepresent your arguments.

That is fair enough and would suggest that this is a common position for everyone to take. Otherwise we could not have coherent arguments/debates. Without that inherent honesty someone could just lie or keep twisting your position and we could never find the truth of the matter.

That’s the other inherent value in arguments. We are trying to find a truth. Not your truth or mine but some truth out there for whatever issue we debate. Another truth is that when we make a claim or object that someone is doing wrong, that some nation or government or tribe in a far off land is being brutal, abusive and denying human rights we are putting a truth out there in the universe that they are doing moral wrong.

We are not just saying we think you are wrong or that they have a right to do what they do because morality is subjective or relative. We are saying "No" what you are doing is wrong regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

So these values are independent of you and me and cannot be denied. They are objective moral values.

Click to expand...

I believe moral value can be denied because they can’t be demonstrated to be true. In order for something to be objective you have to be able to demonstrate it to be true. When I correct someone who miss quote me, I can demonstrate the misquote by going back and comparing it to the original quote I made. Math equations can be demonstrated to be true/false via the agreed upon rules of math; these things are objective. But how do you demonstrate behavior as right or wrong?l If I say (for example) eating meat is morally wrong, but you think it is okay, how do you or I demonstrate our view to be morally correct? Because moral values cannot be demonstrated as objectively right or wrong, morality is subjective; not objective IMO.

Ken-1122 said:

I believe moral value can be denied because they can’t be demonstrated to be true. In order for something to be objective you have to be able to demonstrate it to be true. When I correct someone who miss quote me, I can demonstrate the misquote by going back and comparing it to the original quote I made. Math equations can be demonstrated to be true/false via the agreed upon rules of math; these things are objective. But how do you demonstrate behavior as right or wrong?l If I say (for example) eating meat is morally wrong, but you think it is okay, how do you or I demonstrate our view to be morally correct? Because moral values cannot be demonstrated as objectively right or wrong, morality is subjective; not objective IMO.

Click to expand...

The facts you present in an argument which are supported by your sources though facts/truths are different to what I am talking about. I am talking about the unspoken moral truths we all use when we interact and experience life. Like honesty for example when 2 people engage in a debate. There is no reference to written support for these yet they stand as an objective truth just the same.

You expect me to be honest when I reply and not misrepresent you. I expect the same. That is why we clarify our positions so that they are clear and not misrepresented. That is why you question what I am saying or tell me that I am wrong or misrepresenting what you are saying.

So you are expecting the debate to be honest and you cannot deny the existence of honesty as an agreed value in our debate whether you realize it or not. Debates or engagement with people about particular topics is about trying to find the truth of the matter. So honesty is an integral part of any human engagement.

You can of course deny that honesty is a moral truth in our debate. But the moment you do that the debate and any human engagement breaks down and becomes incoherent.

We then can then both refer back to our debate and see clearly how honesty was integral and how denying it caused the breakdown. That becomes the evidence for it being an objective moral truth. There are many moral truths that work this way. Most are implicit and you just have to stop and think about it to reveal them. This generally comes under the idea or moral realism.