I disagree. I know a lot of people who believe Sin is a real thing who believe nobody is able to live a sinless life; and can even provide scripture to back this claim up.
Upvote
0
Is there Objective Morality?
- Thread starter zippy2006
- Start date
I disagree! Anything objective is the same regardless of scenario. Using Arithmetic, 1+1=2 regardless of if you are counting stones, apples, money, or anything else; that which is objective is true regardless of extenuating circumstances
And who decides when it is right to be honest, and when it is wrong to be honest? The person faced with the moral decision. This is subjective; not objective.
Everything you just described is subjective, but you keep calling it objective.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
As you can see from the above link, that which is objective is based on measurable fact, that which is subjective takes opinions, and extenuating circumstances into consideration. If you have to decide when telling the truth is the right thing to do or not based on extenuating circumstances, opinions, and personal beliefs, you are describing a subjective situation
But still; he did not prove it to be wrong to kill the mentally handicap, he just said it was wrong. He is basing this on his personal beliefs which makes it completely subjective.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Even granting that God exists, why is morality objective to him?
Why would this be the case? We haven't needed God in order to figure out other objective things.
For me, testable evidence that withstands testing would be very compelling evidence, but that's getting outside the scope of this thread.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
That's something that never made sense to me. God made us with flaws and demands that we change from the way he made us in order for him to be pleased.
It leaves me with many unanswered questions.
Why did God feel the need to make us in order for him to achieve pleasure? If it was that important, why didn't he make us the right way to begin with?
Upvote
0
Relative and subjective are closer to the same, and absolute and objective are closer to the same
Upvote
0
Nope. Absolute vs relative and subjective vs objective. Relative and absolute are both under the umbrella of objective.
Relative has nothing to do with subjective because it deals in facts (that's why it's objective). There are no moral facts in moral subjectivism. Likes, dislikes, tastes, and preferences. That's all morality is under subjectivism. Feel free to disagree that is what morality really boils down to, but understand that is what subjectivism is.
Upvote
0
Larniavc
Leading a blameless life
- Jul 14, 2015
- 12,340
- 7,678
- 51
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I think you may have missed my points. It is eminently possible to live a sinless life if one does not ascribe to the belief that sin (as a biblical concept) really exists.
I would hazard that it is almost impossible to get through life without doing ‘a bad thing’ but a ‘bad’ thing and ‘sin’ are not synonymous.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Once again you are confusing absolute and objective morality. For example under absolute morality you can never kill regardless of the circumstances. Whereas under objective morality there will be an objectively right action for each changing circumstance.
So it may be always objectively wrong to kill a child for fun. But it may be objective right to kill a madman who is about to shot your family. So under objective morality there may be times when its OK to kill to save someone life otherwise if your forced to stick to not killing then you will be guilty of a great moral wrong of not protecting life and in some ways are also guilty of killing in an indirect way.
No the person faced with the moral decision has no say in the matter when applied to lived experience. Honesty stands as a moral truth regardless of their views. Thats because honesty is needed in debates/arguements between people to make them coherent. Without honesty you can never have a coherent debate.
So a person who decided in their view that honesty does not matter in debates is shown to be objectively wrong by the fact that they cannot apply their view because they can never have a coherent debate with anyone. The determination that honesty is a moral truth is not made by the people in the debate but by the value of honesty itself which makes it independent of people and therefore objective.
That link just describes subjective and objective morality. It didnt mention universal or absolute morality. Here is a link that explains the difference between the two.
I think this link is best as it explains things in relation to the opposites of objective and absolute morality which helps understand this better.
The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.” Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative.
“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith
Where you are going wrong is conflating personal opinion (subjective morality) with situational circumstances (relative morality). The only thing dictating and influencing the view in subjective morality is the person.
Whereas situational circumstances are outside the person and thus are an outside influence acting on the person. So different outside circumstances can have different effects on people before they make their personal view.
The best example of this would be how the law regards killing with different charges such as 1st degree, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and killing in self defense. Each act of killing is determined with different degrees of culpability. They all relate to killing and the different degrees of charges are not determined by personal opinion but by the circumstances in which they happen. This is relative morality because morality is measured by the circumstances and not the persons view.
But the opposite of relative morality is absolute morality which you are confusing with objective morality. Absolute morality would mean as you said the same level of wrongness is applied to killing regardless of the scenario or in this case the different types of killing. If that was the case then we would not have different degrees of killing like 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and killing in self defense.
Thats because that video was only defining objective morality. There is another video from the same author giving an argument for objective morality or moral realism. The argument goes like this
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.
A more detailed explanation is given to support each premise so you will have to watch the video as it would not do justice to try and explain it in a few words. Its only a a little under 15 minutes long.
Moral Realism: Defended
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
stevevw
inquisitive
You are probably right. As the different circumstances dictate what should be done it is more relative. But we can still determine an objectively right thing to do in each of those different circumstances. It does get confusing and splitting hairs but there is a difference. But thankyou for your input.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I think objective morality is strict but only for the situation it applies to. So a moral wrong like killing is not necessarily wrong as a strict rule in every situation of killing. That would be absolute morality.
I think objective morality can be determined without God as certain moral truths apply because of the way they work in lived experience. They just pop their heads up despite peoples personal views. Like despite peoples claims and personal views honesty is a moral truth in debates/arguemnts. We cannot live without it when it comes to having coherent debates.
I don't think God is subject to the moral law like humans as God can never be immoral. God is the moral values that make morality. He is love, honesty, kindness, generosity ect and because of that he is the origin, creator and arbiter of morality.
Thats me lol.
You mean decerning person
But does that mean there is no objective way to settle things such as measuring apples by weight.
OK
I sort of get what you mean and morality can be that way. It’s like most things injecting the observer into the situation complicates things and we could make a case that everything including the science is in the eye of the beholder.
If this is the case then that says something for the observer as not just being the subject but in saying something objective about reality. It gives some credence that we as observers may know something true/real about the world.
In the same way I think the observer has something to say about morality. We have an inner knowledge of moral truths and they are enacted in lived experience. We sometimes cannot avoid or deny moral truths regardless of personal opinion and we are subject to our conscience getting the better of us in one way of another.
This is I think how objective morality plays out. We have this inner knowledge of moral truths then it would be expected that we live out those truths. Just like we can't help letting our conscience show others what we really believe despite trying to hide or ignore the inner truth of the lived situation.
Just like with honesty in how we cannot avoid or deny it when debating others. WE protest when people misrepresent our arguments and we all expect others to be honest and that’s despite any personal view and claim that honesty is not a moral truth. Otherwise if we do try to live without honesty everything breaks down thus this makes honesty in and of itself as an independent and objective moral truth when it is lived out.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
com7fy8
Well-Known Member
- May 22, 2013
- 13,700
- 6,130
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Well, for God it is subjective, I suppose we could say, since it is His morality. But because God is the only One who is good, it is also objectively good . . . and this includes because His way is for our own good . . . while also oriented to the good He desires, which I have offered is that He will have many children who are like Jesus > Romans 8:29.
But there is morality which is more practical, I would say, like sexual morality of behavior.
But Jesus is concerned about if we lust for someone who is not ours, if we covet another's spouse. So, there is morality emotional and concerning the desires of our heart, deeper than only our behavior.
In any case, the objectivity of the morality is partly related to what is for our good, because God cares about us. I can not genuinely love others while I am giving in to lust, meaning what is merely dominating and demanding drive for pleasure; I mean what has me trying to only or mainly use another person, instead of loving kindly and tenderly and gently and humbly and caring about the person more than I care about what the person does for me.
I would say such items are included in what makes God's morality objectively good. They are for our own good, since "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16).
Plus, God knows which spirit has a person doing things. In case He knows He will not have someone doing certain things . . . this effects which things He says are ok and which are not; if He knows He will not have us doing a certain item, this makes that thing subjectively wrong, by God knowing He does not approve of it, plus it is objectively wrong since it is not His Spirit having us do it.
Because He knows if He is the One who has people doing certain things or not. Certain items might make no real difference, but the spirit causing them can be deeply ruining of a person, if it is not God in the person blessing the person to do it. So, this is included in what makes something objectively good or not.
There is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," we have in Ephesians 2:2. Satan's selfish spirit isolates people and messes them up with dominating and controlling drives for pleasure, and the nasty and negative ways of reacting to not getting what people require and demand. God wants us to have peace and "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30) through Jesus, instead . . . not the cruel and unkind sorts of anger and frustration and arguing and blaming and stress and unforgiveness which come with people trying to make their own thing happen without first sharing with God in His peace with His creativity.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Yeah I think that example just complicates things. It wasn’t so much about Gods immortality but about God existing in a different realm where we cannot apply the same understanding and logic that humans use in our worldly realm when it comes to morality.
Someone was trying to justify subjective morality and said God should have a view on morality just like humans do. I was saying we cannot assume that because we don't know what God thinks or is. It’s an assumption based on applying our understanding to God.
The moral argument for God states that if there are objective morals then there has to be a moral law giver that is outside humans and yet with understanding of morals and humans as morals can only apply to sentient beings. Therefore it follows that this moral law giver has to be a transcendent being like God as who else is beyond humans yet understands them.
No just giving you an example of how honesty is an implicit moral value in debates and any interaction between humans when trying to determine the truth or fact of the matter. Therefore it is independent of humans and stands regardless of what people’s personal view is and so is an objective moral truth.
As the example of honesty is applied above we can determine the moral truth of honesty without the need to show it was handed down as a decree from a higher power. Just like the law of gravity stands as a fact/truth when we walk off a cliff the truth of honesty is seen as a truth when we try to debate without honesty and the interaction breaks down and becomes incoherent.
The thing is there is a set of morals that all people know of regardless of what society or culture we come from. That points to a common knowledge of moral truths. It’s just like the argument as to whether math is created or discovered.
If math is discovered then we can all understand math when we look at the world and universe without ever learning maths just like the Egyptians used geometry in building the pyramids before society came up with math. Math is scattered throughout history like it’s a law of nature. The same may be true of morals. We all come to a similar conclusion about moral values because they are truths of nature.
The argument for commonality with morals whether subjective or objective is never a good argument because it’s a non-sequitur.
Try and take honesty out of a debate or argument or even discussion between people and see how far they get before things break down and become incoherent. So because morals like honesty are real in lived situations despite people’s opinions that they are not this shows that values like honesty are an independent fact/truth outside humans (not based on subjective views).
Sure a person can take the position that honesty is not a truth in a lived situation like a discussion seeking the truth or fact of a matter. But because things break down without honesty it shows an independent determination that the person is objectively wrong.
Here is a link that makes an arguement for objective morality or moral realism.
Moral Realism: Defended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy
I have just given the example above with the moral value of honesty. I think that’s a pretty non-extreme example. As for your example of smacking a child it will depend on the circumstances. We cannot just say its right or wrong across the board with a strict rule. That is not how objective morals work. You would have to be more specific.
But here's the reality. It doesnt matter what you or I say about it. Its in the lived experience. That can be seen in the way people act and react depsite their words and views. A general observation can tell us a lot. In a society that promotes subjective morality we see an aweful lot of protesting about the wrongs other people do as organised groups, whole communities and even as nations. That would be contrary to what subjustcive morality represents and points more to objective moral truths that people are expressing.
I don’t think you understand what is meant by lived experience. It’s about how people act/react and about the practical application of morals rather than what people say in their personal views. Quite often someone may have the view that stealing is OK but then when someone steals from them they object.
Or we see how people are bound by their conscience when they try to pretend that they haven’t done anything wrong. It comes out in one way of another and people sense that guilt as well like they intuitive know. Because moral truths are within people and are a sort of law of nature we cannot help but live out their truths regardless of personal opinion.
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
- 13,700
- 6,130
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I don't think objective morality is the same as the objective rule that something will drop because of the law of gravity. I think humans have much more difficulty in determining what is morally right.
And I think we have seen how humans can vary things, quite readily, when it suits our purpose . . . for example, in my opinion, how ones claiming to be Christians could take their wagons into Indian lands without permission, supposedly trusting God to take care of them . . . when God's word clearly says not to covet what belongs to someone else; yet, ones claiming to be moral were coveting the property of sovereign Indian nations. And if ones did that to the Europeans, they would have been extremely upset, and likely claim their human rights were being violated.
So, humans can have ways of switching things around.
And our focus might be limited by our being mainly concerned about getting our own way without getting in trouble with others. We're ok with rules, as long as they mean we are getting what we want.
So, yes I would say we need God to objectively take care of us
And, like I mean, this does not mean only reforming a bunch of rules, legally, but how we become inside ourselves so it is good for us < this is part of it being truly moral, that it is good for us.
Upvote
0
com7fy8
Well-Known Member
- May 22, 2013
- 13,700
- 6,130
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
shall we? >
What would you mean by "testable evidence"? examples? | Christian Forums
Let's see what the moderators do with this >
Why did God not start humans by making us like Jesus? | Christian Forums
Upvote
0
J_B_
I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
- May 15, 2020
- 1,258
- 365
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yep. I think you're starting to get it, but you're not there yet, because you followed this with some contradictory statements.
This would mean we have perfect knowledge, which we don't. Only God has perfect knowledge. In a strict sense, your statement would mean either that you are claiming to be God, or that God doesn't determine what is morally best for his creation - something other than God would be determining the best morality.
We can get close for some situations, and we have to make moral decisions for practical reasons. But nothing we do is guaranteed to be the right answer.
Yes, that's what it means. We may decide it's more fair to sell apples by weight, but that is not an objective decision.
You still seem to be associating "objective" with "the right way" or "the fair way", but that's not what it means. Maybe it would be easier to think of the root words: subject, object.
You are the subject. You want an apple.
The apple is the object. It is the thing you want.
A subjective approach is one determined by the subject. In a subjective approach, you (the subject) decide whether it's better to sell apples by number or by weight.
An objective approach means the apple (the object) 'decides' for itself how it should be sold. The means for selling apples would be innate to the essential nature of apples.
This is a very important distinction regarding science that most people don't really get. The positivist ideal of the 19th century science movement was to make everything objective, but they failed. In a famous debate between Bohr and Einstein regarding quantum level phenomena, Bohr was emphasizing that the observer's influence (the subject) on the observed (the object) is so significant at the quantum level that we determine reality simply by whether or not we're observing. Einstein couldn't bring himself to accept that.
It's a Schrodinger's Cat kinda thing. Above the quantum level the effect of the observer is not as pronounced, but it is something we engineers struggle with - getting measurements without our equipment affecting what we're trying to measure.
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
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
You say that God's morality is subjective, but also objective because God is the only one who is actually good, but since "good" is a subjective term, the claim that God is good is also a subjective one, and thus you can't say he is objectively good. And if he isn't objectively good, you can't say that God's subjective morality is suitable as a basis for objective morality.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
