Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

I'm not saying this because of my own position/views on it, etc. But because I did look it up, and that seems to be the general consensus, etc. But you will find some hotly debating it saying they know for sure either way, etc.

Which brings us to the point of the recent discussion. Trying to claim the bible as the ultimate authority on God's intentions, runs smack up against man's intention to make it say whatever they want it to say. And then to claim that interpretation as indisputable.

 

[Neogaia777]

Which brings us to the point of the recent discussion. Trying to claim the bible as the ultimate authority on God's intentions, runs smack up against man's intention to make it say whatever they want it to say. And then to claim that interpretation as indisputable.

Yep, a lot of people do do that.

I think God in the OT was God the Holy Spirit though, and did not know all at or from the beginning, and so, while all He did/said was God the Father's will in and for that time, it/He was also meant to learn and change and grow/develop over time. Much about Him changed with Jesus I believe, etc.

But, anyway, my point is that without it being viewed/interpreted in that context, many, many people are going be/get in error about it, etc.

You also have to be able to separate direct words from God the Spirit in the OT, from what was primarily from man, and all of the rest, etc, or you're going to be/get way, way in error about it, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[QvQ]

Which is why I would say that the people you mentioned would look for guidance, rather than doing what was convenient.

I will add that WitchCraft in the Mediterranean cultures was abortion.
It is a well documented historical fact that the definition of "witch" was abortionist and the punishment was death.

Meanwhile, David did not look for guidance when he dallied with Bathsheba
I doubt the politicians I mentioned would look for guidance beyond how to win the next election.

 

[Bradskii]

I doubt the politicians I mentioned would look for guidance beyond how to win the next election.

What would help would be to grant more women the option to have an abortion. The majority of the electorate want that. But in Biden's case that would be against his faith. So he struggled with it. It's well documented. So it seems obvious to me that he would pray for guidance.

We'll never know, of course. What he might have asked divine guidance for is between him and God.

But we are not, of course, talking just about people in public life. The majority of women who have abortions are Catholic. I can imagine very many of them asking for divine guidance. Perhaps from women who had a daughter who wanted an abortion. Do you think the mother would have agreed and perhaps funded the abortion if God had told her that her daughter would spend eternity in hell if it went ahead?

 

[QvQ]

So it seems obvious to me that he would pray for guidance.

This is why morals that are based on reasons, justifications, excuses and the easy way are not morals at all.
Christians are sinners and fall short of the Glory of God
Biden chose to listen to his own guidance even against what he knows to be God's guidance for political gain.
Trump chose the guidance of God, both as a political position and a personal belief.

Abortion is prohibited in the Hebrew law. It is based on Genesis 9:6 which prohibits the shedding of man's blood within man.
It is not and never has been condoned in the OT or the NT.
It is not reasonabe or logical to state that God would prohibit abortion throughout the entire history of man, then a person could pray and believe that God is going to "progress" and maybe give a different guidance?
Why would a person ask God's guidance for an act that God clearly forbids and has forbidden since the world began?
God doesn't change His mind so a person who promotes abortion is like David with Bathsheba, just going their own way for their profit.

 

[o_mlly]

The object is the relationship with my partner. The intent is to have her be subject to me. Or not. Depending on the advice. The circumstances are that of a married couple. I gave you this before. Now what is tbe moral position to take take?

Still trying to be obtuse in your reply?

The issue is the morality of the human act ... not the musings of a confused human. Let me know when you have a human act to review.

 

[stevevw]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thats where I disagree that we can't know that slavery is immoral. Though there are some parlelles between math and moral, both are abstract and yet real phenomena I don't think we have empathy with math. We can intuit it when we divide 4 apples between people or in the patterns of nature such as the Golden ratio.

But I think the main evidence that we know morality is true is because of empathy. We know what its like to be a slave or to suffer an injustice. We intuitive know that when someone keeps all the apples for themselves or divides them unevenly its not fair or just or kind.

Evidence shows even babies sense suffering in the cries of other babies and toddlers will dispense justice even becoming forthright or knowing when to punish a wrong in game experiments.

Because morality is experiential its hard to explain in rational and logical terms. But its a bit like math or laws of physics in that we can intuit the reality of these aspects through our experience of it. We can be told all the information of gravity but its when we fall down that we know and intuit in our lives.

Thats why someone can rationalise that they are a moral subjectivist but react like a moral objectivist. No amount of rationalisation can explaiin morality. You can't get an ought from an is as Hume said.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

I think the main basis for morality is our ability as moral beings to sense the suffering of others because we are capable as conscious beings to do that. We are made in Gods images and above the animals.

Thats is why I think Christ said the 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbour as you love yourself because this covers all morals as basically morality only matters when others are involved.

In that sense unless you are mentally incapable you will sense when something is wrong regarding yours or others behaviour towards others. Though I think people can harden their hearts to that loving empathy. But usually it comes at a cost to their mindset and may be desensitised in other ways or even be psychologically affected themselves.

Most cultures have the same core morals but are just expressed in different ways. So I don't things its a case that there are subjective or relative ways of seeing those core morals. Rather as you say its a difference in factual and cultural understandings.

 

[Jerry N.]

Slavery is one of the things atheists complain about, since it isn’t condemned explicitly in the Bible. I would argue that a properly treated slave was better off 2000 years ago than some workers are now. It is the treatment rather than the title.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No. I'll accept that God is good. What I'm trying to work out is how people know what He wants. Because different people have different views on that.

"And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do." (Deuteronomy 1:16-18)

Yes, we do. And I used an extreme example so that it was obvious.

Why was it obvious? Could it be because morality is objective?

So the command to honour your parents does come with small print. Which says that if your father beats and rapes you then he is not fulfilling his half of the bargain so you don't have to.

No commandment of God exists in a vacuum.

Now, in this case it is plainly obvious. But say he slaps her. Is that enough to disobey God's command? If he beats her just the once? If it's a regular thing? The point that I am making, which should be blazingly obvious, is that we have to decide what is right. We have to decide if someone is wrong. Even if the command from God is specific and there seems no room for doubt we still have to consider it within context.

God does not want us to be automatons - but what is Good and Evil is not decided by Man - but by God's Law.

God wants us to judge for ourselves how best to keep His Law in righteousness and if we find that to be too difficult - we go to Him.

We decide what do to in the moment and we can believe that it is right - but we do not determine if the choice was right.

Don't worry - not all of the choices we make are in the extremes - which people use to try and justify some sin or other.

So, I would refer you to what I quoted from Deuteronomy again.

Unfortunately we live in the real world where it's not always possible.

The Lord Jesus Christ lived in the real world - the world that He created - and He always loved us.

Even as He bled from every pore - even when He was betrayed - even when He was spat and beaten upon - even when He was nailed to a cross.

He still loves us.

The father didn't love his daughter.

And unrepentant sinners don't love Christ - but He still loves them

It seems naive to think that she should love him.

Then you believe that God's Law is naive - for to love our neighbor's as ourselves is the second of the two commandments that the whole Law hinges upon.

So, you believe that God is Good and naive?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I think pretty much.

I am thinking that scientific method could give us a best consensus.
I don't know that there is an objective moral truth.
That sounds like a religious belief.

So, if Germany had won WW2 - and conquered the world as they planned - then genocide would be a moral good?

 

[Zaha Torte]

No. Good grief, why are you making this so hard...

Our decisions are obviously our personal beliefs about what is the best course of action. Based on the facts of the matter. If I give you no facts then you cannot make a decision.

You were the one that claimed that what people do with the facts will vary from person to person.

So, if two people were given the same set of facts - and they both came to different conclusions and made completely different decisions based on the same facts - that means that facts are not the determining factor in the decisions that we make.

And I would argue that many people - maybe even the majority - at least in this country - make decisions without facts all the time.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I think the main evidence that we know morality is true is because of empathy.

That's odd, because I think that empathy is the main evidence against morality... at least objective morality.

Consider the recent shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and the contradictory reactions to it. Some people were appalled while others were elated, and this dichotomy is true in many, many seemingly simple moral scenarios. People simply don't react the same way, to the same things, and for good reason... they have differing experiences and perspectives. Society tries to condition us to have a universal sense of right and wrong, but it simply doesn't work, because ultimately I'm going to view things from my perspective and you're going to view them from yours.

So what you have to learn to do, is to understand that everybody's sense of right and wrong is just as valid as everybody else's. Your concept of morality is meaningless as anything more than your own personal opinion.

If you can do that, if you can learn to respect other people's opinion, then congratulations you're well on your way to not being a biased, hypocritical human being. And you'll realize that morality isn't really all that black and white.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, that claim has never been made. Please stop misrepresenting what has been explained to you. If you are in any doubt, then please use the quote facility and it will be cleared up.

I made this comment in a discussion I was having with another forum member.

And that forum member confirmed in Post #380 that they believed that morality was decided by consensus.

If I had never asked my completely honest, appropriate and relevant question, we never would have known what they believed.

Do you police all other discussions and inject your irrelevant and uninformed takes - or just mine?

We base our decisions on moral acts on the facts of the matter.

Can you share some facts about morality?

You need facts presented before you can make a decision.

Not true. People make uninformed decisions all the time.

Look at this comment you made. You obviously made it without knowing the facts about this discussion.

You cannot make a decision in a vacuum.

Yet you try and present each commandment of God as if they are.

You need some information on which to base it.

That would be ideal.

Now I cannot for the life of me put that any clearer.

This point about the scientific method and facts is just as irrelevant now as it ever was in a discussion about objective morality.

 

[partinobodycular]

I would argue that a properly treated slave was better off 2000 years ago than some workers are now. It is the treatment rather than the title.

So if a sex slave is treated better than some wives, does that make sex slavery okay?

 

[Zaha Torte]

The decisions are circumstantial.
The fact is a person cannot commit theft if everything in his immediate vicinity belongs to him.
If there aren't any other warm bodies around, any sexual sins with same are purely theoretical.
Providence is a major player in "sin." Providence is the Will of God.
So as @Bradskii has stated several times, "It was You who decided or chose the action"(subjective)
That is not entirely correct, even in small regard, due to the limitations of Providence.
Providence is objective.

Decisions are circumstantial. Morality is objective.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think the main basis for morality is our ability as moral beings to sense the suffering of others because we are capable as conscious beings to do that.

And yet our ability to sense the suffering of others is limited and biased. We sense the obvious suffering, while overlooking the hidden suffering... the suffering that we've grown indifferent to.

If you can learn to recognize it all, then your sense of morality will be far less black and white.

 

[Zaha Torte]

And yet our ability to sense the suffering of others is limited and biased. We sense the obvious suffering, while overlooking the hidden suffering... the suffering that we've grown indifferent to.

If you can learn to recognize it all, then your sense of morality will be far less black and white.

That doesn't make sense. Objective morality is based on Law and Justice - not Mercy.

It is only through the acts of a third party that Mercy can be extended.

 

[partinobodycular]

Objective morality is based on Law and Justice - not Mercy.

It's not about law or mercy. It's about our limited ability to know what's just. Law is simply a poor attempt to define what's just... and mercy is simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's not about law or mercy. It's about our limited ability to know what's just. Law is simply a poor attempt to define what's just... and mercy is simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours.

Mercy is not simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours. Mercy accepts a sense of justice and doesn’t reject the crime, but it does offer a chance for repentance and change. If we all got what we deserve, we would never survive past childhood.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It's not about law or mercy. It's about our limited ability to know what's just. Law is simply a poor attempt to define what's just... and mercy is simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours.

This thread is about objective morality - not Man-made laws or Man's sense of Justice and Mercy.

What you said earlier about us being able to learn to recognize suffering is akin to me saying that if we learned why people decided to jump off of cliffs, we could get a better sense of how Gravity works.

A person stepping off of a cliff is going to fall - regardless of why they decided to do it - because Gravity is an objective fact of reality.

This is what this thread is talking about - objective fact concerning Morality - does it exist or not?

As an example - murder is always objectively wrong - the hidden suffering of the murderer does not matter in regard to whether or not murder is always objectively wrong. It simply is.

Rape is always objectively wrong. Any hidden suffering of the rapist does not change that. It does not all of a sudden place rape in a "gray area".

Us learning more about the murderers and rapists - their hidden suffering - can hopefully help us prevent future murders and crimes - thus saving a lot of people - and help us better decide what to do with them - but that won't change that murder and rape are objectively wrong and Evil acts.

We all commit Evil acts - we all step off that cliff - and we all deserve Justice - to fall and go *splat* - but the Lord Jesus Christ extends Mercy to us all.