Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

It often does you a lot of benefit if you can truly, truly forgive them. Whatever that might look like, etc. And the quicker, or earlier the better, etc. Probably not instantaneously, but the sooner the better, etc. You're not really doing anything to them carrying it, and carrying it will only negatively affect you, and your other interpersonal relationships in your life, etc.

I didn't say forgive. I said honour. To honour someone effectively means to respect them for their actions.

 

[Bradskii]

Love your enemies, if they are hungry feed them.....

No problem. If you have prisoners of war then feed them and treat their injuries. Treat them with respect. If a father is beating his child and he has a heart attack, then the child should do what she can to save him. But to show him respect? That's madness.

 

[Neogaia777]

I didn't say forgive. I said honour. To honour someone effectively means to respect them for their actions.

Well, I did say "whatever that might look like", and "Truly, truly forgive them", etc. And I think there are many, many different ways to honour people without showing overwhelming approval for their past actions, etc. Part of forgiveness, honour, etc, is love, and I think if you can still find a way to love them, then you've more than effectively honored them, and still do honor them if you still do love them, etc.

But it's not easy to do in situations like that, and it will probably be a process, but as long as you're still working on it, and working through it, with the goal to find a way to still love them, and always love them after that regardless, then I think you are effectively honoring them to the best of your human ability, or the best that can be expected out of any human being in a situation like that, etc.

Children who are right now in it, while it's not a good situation to be in, still have to try to obey their parents best they can until they are of age, or can get out of the situation, etc, but once they are out and away, and once they are maybe a little bit older, regardless of how bad it was, it won't do anything to the parents to keep staying angry or bitter or unforgiving, but will only hurt you and all your present relationships, and you'll need to begin the healing process from that eventually, and it starts with finding a way to truly, truly forgive them, with the eventual goal of finding a way to love them again somehow, etc.

I know a teacher/preacher who was done very wrong by their parents, and who said they were told by God to personally help them and take care of them in their old age, and they said when they first heard it, the first thing out of their mouth was "I rebuke you Satan" but it kept persisting, and it wasn't Satan, and their parents did them very, very, very wrong, so they thought there was "no way that could be God", "after the way they treated me" (they said), etc, etc, etc, but they kept hearing it again, and again, and again, etc. They eventually did it, and said that while it was not easy, they were able to have a relationship with their parents again, and found a way to be around them, and to love them again, and it wasn't at all about their parents, but it was about them, and they said such a huge weight/burden was lifted off their soul when they finally did that (forgave them/let it go/learned how to love/have a relationship with them again) that it healed something deep within them that very, very much needed to be healed that was very, very broken, and all their relationships that they had with all of the other people in their lives all of the sudden became 1000% better, and they said that by finally and truly forgiving their parents, and learning a way in which they could love them again, that it was them who was healed 1000% completely.

Anyway, too long a post already, but my point is, and I think the preacher even said this, that if it were not for doing that with their parents, they either maybe could have missed out on eternity, or they would have been carrying a very, very huge weight into eternity, and might have been treated like a poor little wounded bird (victim) when they did finally get into eternity, instead of the victor they had become through learning about love and forgiveness, by loving and forgiving their abusive parents, etc.

Also Honor/honour in the Bible I don't think has the same modern day dictionary definition or meaning that it may have today I don't think, etc. Back then, it had many different meanings based on sometimes how old you were and whether or not you were still a child or were a grown adult for example, etc. The Bible never mentions approving of someone's acts or actions in order to honor them for example, etc. And many times it commands it/that despite them, and despite them not being the best, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

No problem. If you have prisoners of war then feed them and treat their injuries. Treat them with respect. If a father is beating his child and he has a heart attack, then the child should do what she can to save him. But to show him respect? That's madness.

With young, or very young children, in the Bible anyway, children who were always doing their best to obey their parents as much as possible was the number one way young children in the Bible were commanded to give their parents honor, or show respect, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I had to make it an extreme example so that people would think there was an obvious answer.

Why was the answer "obvious"? Could it be because morality is objective?

That there'd be a general acceptance that the girl obviously did not have to honour her father. That doesn't make it objective.

I disagree. She is still required to honor her father. She does that by forgiving him and also by making him accountable. Anything less will only make her more miserable.

It just makes it easier to make a personal decision as to what the correct answer should be.

There are many personal decisions that most people would agree are right that would actually do more harm than good.

Now we know that the 'command' doesn't have to be obeyed in all circumstances, it is plainly obvious that we each have to make a personal decision whether to or not depending on the individual circumstances.

I don't agree. We are required to honor our parents - yet what that would entail for each person depends on the circumstances.

Precisely my point.

Yes - and still not at all relevant to a discussion about objective morality.

No. That's exactly what we do. Why on earth wouldn't we choose what we think is right?

We can think or believe that the choice was the right one - but that doesn't mean that it was.

Do we actually know if it's right? To be honest, no.

Exactly.

Unless we're omniscient then we can't be 100% sure.

Thank God for that.

Which is precisely my second point. Even IF there is an objectively correct answer, we cannot know what it is. So it is a complete waste of time claiming that morality is objective if we have no way possible to determine it.

I believe you have determined more objective moral truths than you are willing to admit - for whatever reason.

I mean - you chose a specific horrible and extreme example for a reason - didn't you?

Because you know that a father raping his daughter is objectively wrong.

And once we start to quibble - claiming that we can never know what is or is not right - then you will start to see people defending the father in your scenario.

"How can you claim that him forcing himself on his daughter was wrong if we cannot know what is or is not wrong?"

Me, personally - I would consider listening to that kind of an argument to be a waste of time - because morality is objective.

Us not being able to all agree on what is or is not right is not the same as saying that there is no objective wrong or right.

The moment you claim that there is no objective morality - that is the moment that you cannot claim that a father raping his daughter is wrong - and all of your extreme examples no longer have obvious answers.

Which then leads to my last point. Because at this juncture you'll say 'Well, just ask God. He's omniscient. So He'll obviously know and He can tell you'. Except that what you think He tells you might be different to what I think He tells me. And I mean completely different. So there's no way to know who is correct.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17)

1. We make personal choices as to what is right.

We make personal choices as to what we believe is right.

2. We cannot know if there is an objective answer, so claiming that there is one is a waste of time.

Without knowing that there is an objective answer all our answers become equally worthless.

3. If we ask God what the objective answer is, He seems to give different answers to different people so we still don't know what it is.

If God answers - you will know the truth - but most people would rather just confirm their own biases.

And treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. I see that as a bargain. If someone doesn't fulfill their end then I'm not obliged to fulfill mine.

As I said before - none of God's commandments are in a vacuum.

The Lord Jesus Christ claimed that the first and great commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.

He also taught that if we loved Him that we would keep His commandments.

He commanded us to love each other as He has loved us.

We are therefore commanded to love each other as God loves us.

How does God love us? By extending Mercy when we don't deserve it.

We are required to forgive all people their trespasses against us.

So if the father treats her daughter like a piece of meat then she has no obligation to honour him.

If she wants to remain blameless at the last day - she does. She has every incentive to forgive and honor him. Anything less will make her more miserable.

And yes, that was an extreme example so it was easy to understand.

Why was it easy to understand? Because it relies on an objective moral truth?

I don't believe in God in the first instance.

No kidding.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I thought it was plainly obvious that I was talking about me. Which is why I asked you to use the quote function.

Why would a comment I made to another forum member have anything to do with you?

Why would I quote you in a comment I was making about what another forum member said?

I truly don't understand.

It's our understanding of the correct way to act in different circumstances.

So that father in your horrible example believed that his actions were correct?

Then they don't have enough facts.

Doesn't matter. The decision was still made.

If there are good reasons for them then those reasons will be why I choose to act accordingly. There have to be good reasons for following any command.

What is a "good reason"?

If what is "good" is completely subjective - then aren't you just saying,

"The command would need to confirm my bias in order for me to follow it."

Not much of a "command", is it? More of a, "Do whatever you feel like".

Everyone has become their own god - and no one can disagree with anyone - since they have all decreed that what they do is good.

Who can disagree with god?

I'm not going to explain it again. I have a reasonable command of the English language so if you don't understand what I'm saying after multiple explanations from me then the fault is not mine.

I believe I am trying to have a discussion about objective morality, and you are trying to have a discussion adjacent to that.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Obviously people interpret things differently. This hardly needs to be said. Of course we all do.

I felt the need to say it because you were erroneously claiming that decisions are made only on the facts of the matter - no exception (besides a joke about fiction).

If you want to drill down to the actual rock bottom position of why we make decisions then it's how we interpret the facts that are available.

And wouldn't the lens we use to look at the facts - how we interpret them - include what we believed was right or Good?

As I suggested and you claimed made no sense to you?

That is simply not possible. I'll ask you if you should vote for person A or person B? I'm not going to give you any more facts but you need to make a decision. What will it be?

No - I literally mean making decisions without facts. Nothing but their bias and feelings.

What you actually mean, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that people make decisions based on insufficient facts and lies. Do I really have to say 'You need facts. Oh, and the facts must be true'. No, I don't. Because the very definition of a fact is something 'that is known or proved to be true'.

A fact needs to be true - or else it is not a fact. A fact does not need to be proven to be true in order to be a fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Why was the answer "obvious"? Could it be because morality is objective?

It's easy to get most people to agree whether examples are right or wrong if they are extreme. But even if all people agree, that doesn't make it objective. You don't decide morality by a vote.

I don't agree. We are required to honor our parents - yet what that would entail for each person depends on the circumstances.

Why do you not understand that that is precisely my point? It is different for each person depending on the circumstances. But it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that a girl who is regularly beaten and raped by her father should honour him.

And once we start to quibble - claiming that we can never know what is or is not right - then you will start to see people defending the father in your scenario.

Good grief...will you please stop saying this. I have not claimed or suggested or proposed that we can't decide what is right or wrong. Anyone who defends the father has some serious problems. Relative morality means that someone can think that what they are doing is acceptable. It doesn't mean that we have to agree for heaven's sake.

Us not being able to all agree on what is or is not right is not the same as saying that there is no objective wrong or right.

It is precisely why we can say there is no objective morality. Because we often have different personal views on it. It's the very definition of relative morality. But the obverse is also true: If we do all agree then that doesn't make it objective.

The moment you claim that there is no objective morality - that is the moment that you cannot claim that a father raping his daughter is wrong - and all of your extreme examples no longer have obvious answers.

Again, no. I can make the decision as to whether he is wrong.

We make personal choices as to what we believe is right.

Gee, you say we make the choices? Well, that makes it...what was the term...ah yes, relative.

Without knowing that there is an objective answer all our answers become equally worthless.

Even if there somehow was an objectively correct answer to a moral problem then unless you are omniscient then you're not going to know what it is. Then, as far as you are concerned, all your answers are worthless.

 

[Bradskii]

So that father in your horrible example believed that his actions were correct?

I doubt that. But it's irrelevant anyway.

What is a "good reason"?

You must have know that was meant as being a valid reason. Surely.

Who can disagree with god?

Anyone who thinks that an interpretation of his commands are invalid.

I believe I am trying to have a discussion about objective morality, and you are trying to have a discussion adjacent to that.

If you don't understand what I mean then it's not my problem.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Loving empathy does not recognise criterias for qualifying fairness, justice and kindness, It is what it is. This is seen in even todlers who are innocent to all the ideological and political differences people have. They respond to any injustice of unfairness full stop. That is why Christ said we must become like children.

Empathy can be twisted and rationalised into injustice and unkindness but this is not empathy that has no grounding like any claimed subjective morality. Morality needs a basis and Christs example and techings is sthat basis. Otherwise yes all sorts of rationalisations will justify all sorts of behaviour because its not an independent basis beyond humans but is human determinations which are fallible and supceptible to immorality.

 

[Bradskii]

I felt the need to say it because you were erroneously claiming that decisions are made only on the facts of the matter - no exception (besides a joke about fiction).

As I said, our interpretation of the facts. But you need the facts to enable you to interpret them.

And wouldn't the lens we use to look at the facts - how we interpret them - include what we believed was right or Good?

How you interpret the objective facts and how I interpret them may well lead us to different conclusions. That's what makes the decisions relative.

No - I literally mean making decisions without facts. Nothing but their bias and feelings.

You can't make decisions without facts. As I pointed out, you have no idea whether to vote for Person A or Person B because you have no information (read facts) about them.

 

[stevevw]

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.

As I mentioned in the other post this is not empathy in the true sense because its qualifying what counts as empathy according to human ideas of morality and empathy. In fact I would say any siding with celebrating murder is not empathy and more like solidarity and subversion of what we would consider empathy for all and not just some.

That thinking has all the hallmarks of tadical Marxism the subversive groups throughout history whose aim was not to unite society but divide throygh violence and destablization.

It goes back to having no independent basis for determining what is empathy in the true sense. Lets not even call it empathy but as Christs 2nd greatest commandment to love others (thats anyone as in the Good Samaritan) which Christ used to emphasize this point that it does not matter about your political ideology or personal and group beliefs but that all humans are worthy.

This same basis was used the the founding declarations of free nations that being made in Gods image a divine nature beyond human ideology is protected just for the fact of being human and having nature God given born rights. It is the same basis that is used for Human Rights as well.

Though I will admit that lately the UN has become Woke and has allowed ideology to blind them from this long held truth in how they have allowed ebem Hamas supporters to infiltrate their ranks. But the very same ideological overreach that allowed them to get into that situation is the exactl;y same ideological overreach where some celebrate Hamas murdering innocent Jews and the murder of a CEO on the streets in a free nation.

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.

No its really. You can't equate celebrating murder (because thats what is is regardless of how some frame it as a blow to the oppressive system. Its never justified. If we took that logic and allied it generally tyhen society would become a bloodbath.

This idea that all views are equal and should be welcome and even celebrated is sheer deulsion and dangerous. Its the type of ideologial thinking (radical Marxism and even Islamist radicalism) that has crept into our free societies. It use to be confined to the radicals beyond our borders and now we have invited it in and the entire world is becoming like the horrible affairs we use to be thankfull had never infiltrated our society.

Now its on our doorsetsps and spreading due to ideological overreach whose only aim is not ppeace, equality and fairness but that undermine anything they believe is oppressive. Because thats how they see the world as oppressors and victims. Its an ideology and not reality and very divisive. But hopefully things might change and we can restore some sanity and get back to the basic truth principles that have worked for millenia.

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.

I respect other peoples opinion to be be expressed. Of course.

But free speech also means that all opinions should be allowed and non cancelled and then all opinions can be discussed in the public market place as to their reality, logic, truth and morality according to the facts, science, objective reality and the moral truths we have already tried and tested for millenia and know are truth like human rights and the delarations which contain those truths.

Areyou saying we cannot determine if some opinions are just incoherent or misrepresentations of reality. That is not the reality of our lived experience. Someone who claims stealing is ok is just plain wrong when they react like its wrong when someone steals from them.

If a radical group wanted to install Sharia law we in the fee world know its immoral even if the radicals claim its good. Otherwise we would have chaos and hell on earth even worse than it is now.

 

[Valletta]

Ugh... really? Murder and rape are always wrong because we define them them that way.

Murder and rape are because they go against God's will. We do define the laws in regard to murder and rape

 

[BCP1928]

Murder and rape are because they go against God's will. We do define the laws in regard to murder and rape

"God's will" is a divine command ethic, not a morality. It also raises the controversial issue of how we are going to decide what God's will is.

 

[Valletta]

"God's will" is a divine command ethic, not a morality. It also raises the controversial issue of how we are going to decide what God's will is.

Morality, that sense of right or wrong, is imprinted on the souls of all humans. We are made in the image of God.

 

[BCP1928]

Morality, that sense of right or wrong, is imprinted on the souls of all humans. We are made in the image of God.

That we have a sense of "rightness" and "wrongness" is undeniable, It arises out of our ability to consider the consequences of our own actions. Some people believe that the "Garden" story in Genesis explains how we acquired that ability, some think it developed naturally as we evolved into humans, but have it we do, The list of particular actions we describe as "right" or "wrong" is socially constructed. Some precepts are all but universal, reflecting the universality of human nature (rape and murder are "wrong.") Some are more localized (it is "wrong" for a woman to expose her breasts in public.) In a general way, actions which result in great harm to others are more universally deemed to be "wrong" than actions which are merely annoying to others.

 

[o_mlly]

So you can't decide on whether something that you are considering is moral or not?

No ... that would be you who cannot decide.

So let's make it an act. I've told my partner that she is to be subject to me. Now you have everything that you need.

Really? Is that partner you wife? And there are no other circumstances to that utterance?

So, you're walking by her in the kitchen and casually say, "You are to be subject to me". Get real.

 

[partinobodycular]

Morality, that sense of right or wrong, is imprinted on the souls of all humans.

I'm sorry, but even if true, this answer is insufficient in any practical sense. I'm fairly certain that in the not too distant past there were those who would've considered it immoral for a black person to marry a white person. In fact, there may still be people like that around today. Does this certainty on their part make it true?

The correct answer of course is no.

So when I look at myself, and what I so confidently believe to be true... how do I know that I'm right?

Again, the correct answer is that I don't.

Of course, in a way you're correct... that sense of right and wrong is imprinted on our souls, just as our sense of beauty is. But having a sense of right and wrong doesn't mean that my judgment of right and wrong is going to align with your judgment of right and wrong, any more than my sense of beauty will.

Having a sense of right and wrong doesn't equate to the universality of right and wrong... other than the fact that we'll all have one.

Once you can accept that... that your sense of right and wrong is yours and yours alone, then you'll begin to realize just how self-righteous any absolute certainty concerning the judgment of others actually is.

By judging others you are in a sense playing God. Be very, very careful about the manner in which you do that.

 

[Valletta]

I'm sorry, but even if true, this answer is insufficient in any practical sense. I'm fairly certain that in the not too distant past there were those who would've considered it immoral for a black person to marry a white person. In fact, there may still be people like that around today. Does this certainty on their part make it true?

The correct answer of course is no.

So when I look at myself, and what I so confidently believe to be true... how do I know that I'm right?

Again, the correct answer is that I don't.

Of course, in a way you're correct... that sense of right and wrong is imprinted on our souls, just as our sense of beauty is. But having a sense of right and wrong doesn't mean that my judgment of right and wrong is going to align with your judgment of right and wrong, any more than my sense of beauty will.

Having a sense of right and wrong doesn't equate to the universality of right and wrong... other than the fact that we'll all have one.

Once you can accept that... that your sense of right and wrong is yours and yours alone, then you'll begin to realize just how self-righteous your absolute certainty concerning the judgment of others actually is.

By judging others you are in a sense playing God. Be very, very careful about the manner in which you do that.

My answer, which is true, was a response to the incorrect claim that "God's will is not a morality." But you are correct when you state we have differences in what we perceive as moral. That's what we base so many of our laws upon. I try to not judge others.

 

[partinobodycular]

This idea that all views are equal and should be welcome and even celebrated is sheer deulsion and dangerous.

I'm going to have to ask you to forgive me, because your post was too long, and I'm too busy to write an adequate response. I'll try to do better.