How do you measure morality?

[Steve Petersen]

In virtually every measure, the world has become a better place to live IN THE AGGREGATE for the last 200 years at least. Fundamentalists of all stripes (Christian, Jew, Muslim) seem to be entrenched in the notion that the world is going to hell fast.

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

 

[RDKirk]

In virtually every measure, the world has become a better place to live IN THE AGGREGATE for the last 200 years at least. Fundamentalists of all stripes (Christian, Jew, Muslim) seem to be entrenched in the notion that the world is going to hell fast.

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

The ethics of a Christian are deontological, with one's "duty" being dedicated to God. Persons who do not ascribe to such a deontological ethic are "immoral" by that standard despite the character of their actions.

 

[cvanwey]

The ethics of a Christian are deontological, with one's "duty" being dedicated to God. Persons who do not ascribe to such a deontological ethic are "immoral" by that standard despite the character of their actions.

Let's explore...

A dedicated Christian claims to receive instruction from God. But the dedicated Christian does not agree with the order from 'God'. On what basis does the human assess if the command is moral? Meaning, do they simply follow the command, as instructed, because it came from God and God IS moral? Or do they assess with their own 'moral' evaluation?

Furthermore, how might one be able to evaluate that the instruction actually came from God, and was not instead self induced?

 

[cvanwey]

In virtually every measure, the world has become a better place to live IN THE AGGREGATE for the last 200 years at least. Fundamentalists of all stripes (Christian, Jew, Muslim) seem to be entrenched in the notion that the world is going to hell fast.

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

For Christians, it becomes faith/belief/relationship (vs) works (vs) a combination of both.

People might state that if everyone was a Christian, then there might be 'less' immoral actions in which we judge as moral/immoral.

However, the Bible condones/allows/permits slavery and inequality for women in leadership. Two 'moral topics' in which even Christians no longer tolerate

And since God's word is objective, or never changing, we have a conflict; as there exists no Bible update since these pronouncements to now disallow such actions.

Quite the quandary...

 

[RDKirk]

Meaning, do they simply follow the command, as instructed, because it came from God and God IS moral?

Yes

Or do they assess with their own 'moral' evaluation?

No. That's not obedience, that's assent.

Furthermore, how might one be able to evaluate that the instruction actually came from God, and was not instead self induced?

That is the question and difficulty, but that's a matter of communication, not ethics.

 

[cvanwey]

That is the question and difficulty, but that's a matter of communication, not ethics.

True, but if such a scenario is true, then it appears directly related.

For example:

Abraham stated God told him to almost slaughter his son. If Abraham was instead mistaken, and such thoughts were instead self manifested, then I would assume such an act is considered 'immoral'.

People claim communication from God all the time. Take George W. Bush for instance... He claimed, on more than one occasion, that God was guiding him on the war on terror. So we have a quandary brewing...

If such claims were true, that God was speaking to Bush, then I guess it was 'moral' to carry out such actions.

If such statements were instead lead only by self manifestation and/or delusion, then the president ordered the slaughter of 1,000's of innocent victims, considered 'immoral'.

How might one evaluate if a claim/command is from God, versus self manifestation?

 

[RDKirk]

True, but if such a scenario is true, then it appears directly related.

For example:

Abraham stated God told him to almost slaughter his son. If Abraham was instead mistaken, and such thoughts were instead self manifested, then I would assume such an act is considered 'immoral'.

People claim communication from God all the time. Take George W. Bush for instance... He claimed, on more than one occasion, that God was guiding him on the war on terror. So we have a quandary brewing...

If such claims were true, that God was speaking to Bush, then I guess it was 'moral' to carry out such actions.

If such statements were instead lead only by self manifestation and/or delusion, then the president ordered the slaughter of 1,000's of innocent victims, considered 'immoral'.

How might one evaluate if a claim/command is from God, versus self manifestation?

Back in my earlier days as a military intelligence analyst, we had a special telephone we called the "KY-3" for long-distance discussion of classified information. The way it worked, I might be talking to my commander, "Colonel Frank" who is in another building over the regular telephone about orders he wanted me to obey. When it became clear that the discussion was going to involve classified information, I'd say, "Colonel Frank, let's continue this discussion over the KY-3."

Then I'd walk down the hall from my office to a special room with special anti-intrusion countermeasures and close the door behind me. In that room, sitting on a special electronic pedestal, was the KY-3 telephone. I'd dial the number to the phone near Colonel Frank's office, then I'd hear the call answered, "This is Colonel Frank."

But even though I'd already arranged with Colonel Frank to call him on the KY-3, even though I'd called the number I knew to be his, even though the expected person with the expected voice answered the phone, even though the KY-3 itself was a special armored hard wired line with all kinds of security measures, I would not presume it actually was Colonel Frank on the other end.

Instead, I would immediately pull out a book from a compartment in the pedestal under the KY-3. I'd flip the book open to that day's date and read from the book a special daily "challenge code."

On the other end of the line, Colonel Frank would pull from a shelf under his KY-3 an identical book. He'd open to that day's date, note the challenge code I'd given him, and respond with the appropriate response code.

Only then was I satisfied that I was actually talking to the right person.

Notice that the verification process to ensure I was talking to the correct person had nothing to do with my ethical commitment to obey his orders. I did not decide whether or not I would be obedient to my commander based on the process of verifying his identity.

 

[cvanwey]

Back in my earlier days as a military intelligence analyst, we had a special telephone we called the "KY-3" for long-distance discussion of classified information. The way it worked, I might be talking to my commander, "Colonel Frank" who is in another building over the regular telephone about orders he wanted me to obey. When it became clear that the discussion was going to involve classified information, I'd say, "Colonel Frank, let's continue this discussion over the KY-3."

Then I'd walk down the hall from my office to a special room with special anti-intrusion countermeasures and close the door behind me. In that room, sitting on a special electronic pedestal, was the KY-3 telephone. I'd dial the number to the phone near Colonel Frank's office, then I'd hear the call answered, "This is Colonel Frank."

But even though I'd already arranged with Colonel Frank to call him on the KY-3, even though I'd called the number I knew to be his, even though the expected person with the expected voice answered the phone, even though the KY-3 itself was a special armored hard wired line with all kinds of security measures, I would not presume it actually was Colonel Frank on the other end.

Instead, I would immediately pull out a book from a compartment in the pedestal under the KY-3. I'd flip the book open to that day's date and read from the book a special daily "challenge code."

On the other end of the line, Colonel Frank would pull from a shelf under his KY-3 an identical book. He'd open to that day's date, note the challenge code I'd given him, and respond with the appropriate response code.

Only then was I satisfied that I was actually talking to the right person.

Notice that the verification process to ensure I was talking to the correct person had nothing to do with my ethical commitment to obey his orders. I did not decide whether or not I would be obedient to my commander based on the process of verifying his identity.

I appreciate the explanation for verification of your military tactics. However, this is not relevant to my inquiry, regarding 'morality'.

Let's try a more general approach, and take the 10 commandments for instance. No 'right-minded' Christian would argue these are supposedly God's given moral pronouncements. So we are right back to the predicament of ethics/communication, which are directly tied to one another, and here's why....

If Moses came down with hand written tablets given by the moral arbiter (God), then case closed I guess. However, if Moses did not receive such instruction from a supreme moral arbiter, then it was instead self manifested claimed objective pronouncements.

So I again ask.... If morals are given by God, how might we know the pronouncements are actually given by God, verses self invented pronouncements, in which most may happen to agree with at the time they were asserted/issued? What meter-stick or verification method is used to determine the communication for moral pronouncements came from anything other that self manifestation all along?

You so eloquently described the method for military to conclude a reliable/justifiable conclusion... What method is used for Bible author communication, while also keeping in mind the human mind is acknowledged as a flawed device?

 

[RDKirk]

I appreciate the explanation for verification of your military tactics. However, this is not relevant to my inquiry, regarding 'morality'.

Let's try a more general approach, and take the 10 commandments for instance. No 'right-minded' Christian would argue these are supposedly God's given moral pronouncements. So we are right back to the predicament of ethics/communication, which are directly tied to one another, and here's why....

If Moses came down with hand written tablets given by the moral arbiter (God), then case closed I guess. However, if Moses did not receive such instruction from a supreme moral arbiter, then it was instead self manifested claimed objective pronouncements.

So I again ask.... If morals are given by God, how might we know the pronouncements are actually given by God, verses self invented pronouncements, in which most may happen to agree with at the time they were asserted/issued? What meter-stick or verification method is used to determine the communication for moral pronouncements came from anything other that self manifestation all along?

You so eloquently described the method for military to conclude a reliable/justifiable conclusion... What method is used for Bible author communication, while also keeping in mind the human mind is acknowledged as a flawed device?

Now you're going to get into the issue of "how do we hear from God?" and there is already an open thread on that topic.

Here we are talking about the moral issue, and my position is that a Christian has accepted God as his moral authority. Verification of communication is a mechanical problem that has nothing to do with his basic moral stance.

 

[cvanwey]

Now you're going to get into the issue of "how do we hear from God?" and there is already an open thread on that topic.

Here we are talking about the moral issue, and my position is that a Christian has accepted God as his moral authority. Verification of communication is a mechanical problem that has nothing to do with his basic moral stance.

I'm not aware of such a thread, but thank you for pointing out as such...

However, please understand that I consider myself a moral relativist. I've had many of discussions, in great detail, with many of all positions. And for me, the conclusion is simple.

1. God is 'high commander' in which humans must adhere to or obey or be punished.
2. People write stuff to paper, or assert stuff as being commanded by a God, when in fact there was no such actual communication - (my contention thus far).
3. Morals can be attempted to be made 'objective', by associating them with the term 'well-being'; but this is more-so applicable for the humanists.
4. Morals cannot be objective, even if there actually does exist God.
5 The Euthyphro dilemma...

My conclusion is simple, and actually kind of comports with your prior association with the
military' analogy. If God does exist, then it really does not matter what human opinions have. If God does exist, regardless of any human opinion, God will do what God wants.

It all boils down to...

1.) How do we actually KNOW there is a God?
2.) Is such a God actually handing down orders for human society?

Because until these two questions are settled once and for all, it almost becomes arbitrary to place the cart before the horse. Meaning, we are instead discussing a very hypothetical situation before we've even established if such communication is validated.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not aware of such a thread, but thank you for pointing out as such...

However, please understand that I consider myself a moral relativist. I've had many of discussions, in great detail, with many of all positions. And for me, the conclusion is simple.

1. God is 'high commander' in which humans must adhere to or obey or be punished.
2. People write stuff to paper, or assert stuff as being commanded by a God, when in fact there was no such actual communication - (my contention thus far).
3. Morals can be attempted to be made 'objective', by associating them with the term 'well-being'; but this is more-so applicable for the humanists.
4. Morals cannot be objective, even if there actually does exist God.
5 The Euthyphro dilemma...

My conclusion is simple, and actually kind of comports with your prior association with the
military' analogy. If God does exist, then it really does not matter what human opinions have. If God does exist, regardless of any human opinion, God will do what God wants.

It all boils down to...

1.) How do we actually KNOW there is a God?
2.) Is such a God actually handing down orders for human society?

Because until these two questions are settled once and for all, it almost becomes arbitrary to place the cart before the horse. Meaning, we are instead discussing a very hypothetical situation before we've even established if such communication is validated.

Well, you haven't actually asked a moral question, only a question of the mechanics of communication.

With regard to the objectivity of morality, I will say that as a Christian I observe that morality is subjective to God--that is, God is not subject to some higher standard of morality to which He must adhere, but rather morality is what He dictates. So, yes, morality is subjective to God.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, you haven't actually asked a moral question, only a question of the mechanics of communication.

With regard to the objectivity of morality, I will say that as a Christian I observe that morality is subjective to God--that is, God is not subject to some higher standard of morality to which He must adhere, but rather morality is what He dictates. So, yes, morality is subjective to God.

I'm already aware that you adhere to option 1.) of my prior response, or a close proximity to...

So 'placing the cart before the horse', meaning, assuming such moral instruction is that the Bible was actually God given, without first establishing an accurate objective mechanism to distinguish self manifestation versus God given, I will now throw you a bone

Here is a 'moral question'....

1. In observance to proclaimed scripture (1 Timothy 2:11-12), is America now breaking God's law by the total and complete allowance of women's full leadership, in every capacity, just the same as the male counter part?

2. Is America now destined to become 'worse', as America appears to be passing laws which go against God's objective pronouncements?

 

[RDKirk]

I'm already aware that you adhere to option 1.) of my prior response, or a close proximity to...

So 'placing the cart before the horse', meaning, assuming such moral instruction is that the Bible was actually God given, without first establishing an accurate objective mechanism to distinguish self manifestation versus God given, I will now throw you a bone

Here is a 'moral question'....

1. In observance to proclaimed scripture (1 Timothy 2:11-12), is America now breaking God's law by the total and complete allowance of women's full leadership, in every capacity, just the same as the male counter part?

2. Is America now destined to become 'worse', as America appears to be passing laws which go against God's objective pronouncements?

Christians are first and foremost citizens of Heaven. As my signature says, "I'm a citizen of heaven...currently deployed to the United States" on a mission of limited duration.

Christians operate in the capacity of ambassadors and are temporary residents in these nations. We have a citizenship elsewhere and a culture from elsewhere. As such, we should not "go native"--as too many American Christians have unfortunately done.

America is no different in the eyes of Christ from any other earthly nation--it's just another place where He has deployed Christians.

Contrary to the opinion of a lot of American Christians, America is likely not the biggest blip on Christ's radar. China is producing about 1,000 new Christians a week, and at that rate they're likely to have more committed Christians (not nominal Christians) than the US very soon...if not already. At least China is a much more significant "growth market."

There are lots of places with more vibrant Christian activity than the US. Even Christian population of North Korea has grown tenfold, from about 5,000 to about 50,000 since the mid 90s...so much so that the DPRK is no longer trying to exterminate Christianity but is trying to co-op it with the creation of a state North Korean Orthodox Church.

All that said:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. -- 1 Corinthians 5

So the direction America is going isn't actually a matter of concern for Christians.

When I was active duty stationed in the Philippines during the days preceeding "People's Rebellion," my Philippine Air Force counterpart had asked me, "What would the US military do if there were a popular coup against Ferdinand Marcos?"

I knew that, frankly, we would do nothing because we'd already determined that we could continue our mission as well well the new regime as with Marcos (who had already become a pain in the okole). The problem American Christianity faces is from inside, not from outside. We're doing too much judging of people outside the Church--which is not our business--and not enough judging of what's going on inside the Church.

 

[cvanwey]

Christians are first and foremost citizens of Heaven. As my signature says, "I'm a citizen of heaven...currently deployed to the United States" on a mission of limited duration.

Christians operate in the capacity of ambassadors and are temporary residents in these nations. We have a citizenship elsewhere and a culture from elsewhere. As such, we should not "go native"--as too many American Christians have unfortunately done.

America is no different in the eyes of Christ from any other earthly nation--it's just another place where He has deployed Christians.

Contrary to the opinion of a lot of American Christians, America is likely not the biggest blip on Christ's radar. China is producing about 1,000 new Christians a week, and at that rate they're likely to have more committed Christians (not nominal Christians) than the US very soon...if not already. At least China is a much more significant "growth market."

There are lots of places with more vibrant Christian activity than the US. Even Christian population of North Korea has grown tenfold, from about 5,000 to about 50,000 since the mid 90s...so much so that the DPRK is no longer trying to exterminate Christianity but is trying to co-op it with the creation of a state North Korean Orthodox Church.

All that said:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. -- 1 Corinthians 5

So the direction America is going isn't actually a matter of concern for Christians.

When I was active duty stationed in the Philippines during the days preceeding "People's Rebellion," my Philippine Air Force counterpart had asked me, "What would the US military do if there were a popular coup against Ferdinand Marcos?"

I knew that, frankly, we would do nothing because we'd already determined that we could continue our mission as well well the new regime as with Marcos (who had already become a pain in the okole). The problem American Christianity faces is from inside, not from outside. We're doing too much judging of people outside the Church--which is not our business--and not enough judging of what's going on inside the Church.

This response is entirely irrelevant to my two specific questions. Let me simplify/generalize even further, (by taking America out of the equation). Since you do not want to address my observed direct correlation between ethics/communication, regarding determining how we know claimed moral pronouncements are actually God given... I'm now wondering why in response #11, you indicated how I'm not bringing up a moral question, and then when I do, you use the exact same answer I already acknowledged.. Which is, if God exists, our opinions don't matter

However, can you please address the questions I have laid forth? I understand I'm a moral relativist. However, I also understand that if God did not assert 1 Timothy 2:11-12, then there appears to be no justified reason to follow such a verse, (when left to human evaluation)

1. Is it 'immoral' to allow women leadership, in all the same capacities, as men?
2. Does allowing women every same leadership ability, create a more 'immoral' society?

 

[RDKirk]

This response is entirely irrelevant to my two specific questions. Let me simplify/generalize even further, (by taking America out of the equation). Since you do not want to address my observed direct correlation between ethics/communication, regarding determining how we know claimed moral pronouncements are actually God given... I'm now wondering why in response #11, you indicated how I'm not bringing up a moral question, and then when I do, you use the exact same answer I already acknowledged.. Which is, if God exists, our opinions don't matter

However, can you please address the questions I have laid forth? I understand I'm a moral relativist. However, I also understand that if God did not assert 1 Timothy 2:11-12, then there appears to be no justified reason to follow such a verse, (when left to human evaluation)

1. Is it 'immoral' to allow women leadership, in all the same capacities, as men?

First, as the Christian morality is based on deontological ethics, Christian morality only applies to Christians. The non-Christian has not accepted Christ as his moral authority, thus has no duty to Christ.

In fact, scripture asserts:
The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. -- Romans 8

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. -- Hebrews 11

So with regard to those outside the Church, no particular act is can be judged in terms of Christian morality because they are not Christians. To do so is as absurd as judging a civilian's clothing according to military dress regulations.

Asking that question within Christianity, as far as I can see in scripture the only position prohibited is co-ed discipleship. That is, a man should not be a religious sensei to a woman and a woman should not be a religious sensei to a man. But an older woman should be the religious sensei to a younger woman and an older man should be a religious sensei to a younger man.

I used the term sensei to point out that what the apostle Paul considered "teaching" in his day was a relationship that we in the West don't actually use, but is similar to the Asian sensei relationship. It was the relationship Jesus had with His disciples, for instance, holding authority over them even to the extent of changing their names. We don't do that in the West.

The principle established in scripture is: "There is neither...male nor female in Christ."

2. Does allowing women every same leadership ability, create a more 'immoral' society?

That is actually the same as the first question with the same answers:

1. There is nothing that can be done by persons outside the Church to make them moral according to Christian deontology. The question is absurd with regard to society outside the Church.

2. The only restriction within the Church is that training to Godly maturity should be done between members of the same sex.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Can we get back to the questions in the OP please:

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can we get back to the questions in the OP please:

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

Maybe we shouldn't be looking so much at whether or not people are "moral" but at whether or not their present outlook-on-life provides each of them a personal reason to go on living when faced with continual and utter frustration and dysfunction.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Can we get back to the questions in the OP please:

So, how do you measure morality? What statistics prove that the world is less moral today than even 50 years ago?

Number living in poverty? Starvation? Abortion? Murder? Or is church attendance your only measure?

Church attendance, more people having access to marriage privileges recognized by the state, and whether or not you can force other people's kids to practice your religion in public school. Those seem to be the main criteria for the type of people who say the world is getting worse, or that civilization is on the decline, or some similar descriptor thereof.

 

[RDKirk]

Church attendance, more people having access to marriage privileges recognized by the state, and whether or not you can force other people's kids to practice your religion in public school. Those seem to be the main criteria for the type of people who say the world is getting worse, or that civilization is on the decline, or some similar descriptor thereof.

That would be the case where a particular religion is the gang sign of the dominant culture.

 

[Tolworth John]

So, how do you measure morality?

very simply.

How does society regard and seek to follow the ten commandments?