Is morality objective, even without God?

[Zaha Torte]

Objective morality is subject to each individual case in every possible circumstance, etc. Or both the unique individual's unique make-up has to be considered, along with when it is individually placed in every possible circumstance, etc. And no, no other human being (or book) has been able to fully know, or show, or has been able to lay that all down/out for us fully yet, etc. The world might not be able to contain the amount of scrolls/writing that would need to be written in order to contain all of that for us fully maybe yet, etc

God Bless.

Yet the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was planted in the Garden and our first parents ate of its Fruit - which God Himself claimed made Man like Himself - to know Good and Evil.

Does this not suggest that there is objective Good and Evil?

 

[Zaha Torte]

CORRECT!!!

Yet our first parents gained Knowledge of Good and Evil when they partook of the Fruit - which God Himself attested to.

Is it not possible that we can come to better know and understand what Good and Evil are if we come to rely on that Perfect Lawful Being whose Knowledge of Good and Evil that Man obtained caused him to become more like Him?

 

[Neogaia777]

Yet the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was planted in the Garden and our first parents ate of its Fruit - which God Himself claimed made Man like Himself - to know Good and Evil.

Does this not suggest that there is objective Good and Evil?

If you mean that there is a such thing as blanket statements that can ever be made by anyone regarding someone else's 100% for sure eternity or eternal salvation or destination, then, no, there is no such thing.

And where it says it in the Bible was where some mere human was overstepping their bounds, or boundaries, etc, because only the God/One who is the Judge can decide such certainties.

And to get to your question, no mere human can say a thing is 100% always wrong, or 100% always right, because not only does he not know that ever, but he is also not the judge of such certainties.

So if there is objective morality, then not only will only God and God alone know it, but it will probably also involve not one single thing always being 100% right or 100% wrong when it comes to absolutely everybody all of the time and always. Man does not know that, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

What you believe is Good.

I'm sorry. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you mean that there is a such thing as blanket statements that can ever be made by anyone regarding someone else's 100% for sure eternity or eternal salvation or destination, then, no, there is no such thing.

And where it says it in the Bible was where some mere human was overstepping their bounds, or boundaries, etc, because only the God/One who is the Judge can decide such certainties.

And to get to your question, no mere human can say a thing is 100% always wrong, or 100% always right, because not only does he not know that ever, but he is also not the judge of such certainties.

So if there is objective morality, then not only will only God and God alone know it, but it will probably also involve not one single thing always being 100% right or 100% wrong when it comes to absolutely everybody all of the time and always. Man does not know that, etc.

God Bless.

I tell everybody that what the Bible (or some of the humans in it) says is bad, or evil, or wrong, or is a sin, etc, can always be or involve a varying amount of risk when it comes down to yours (or mine) eternal salvation or destination maybe, etc.

God won't hold any of us who He already knows to be imperfect up to a standard of 100% absolute perfection more than likely, etc. But there still can maybe be some things that might or can be a risk to your eternal saving or salvation probably, etc.

But if He does hold some things against you after this, and before you can get to go elsewhere, etc, then I think your attitude in the way you answer Him before all and everybody might be what sends you either place after this more than anything, etc. Even more so than the sin or evil or wrong itself that was committed in a lot of cases probably, since we have all done and are all going to be guilty of at least some of that, etc. (See some of my previous posts/replies so far or from before this so far in this thread).

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Most people think when you are saying that this or that is bad or evil or wrong, that you are saying that they are bad or evil or wrong, and also that you are also saying that it can't be forgiven after this, etc, and that is why they take offense, and is why we have all of this that they are right now saying about it nowadays. That's not what some of us are saying, but that's what they hear you saying, and that's why it causes offense. And religious people have caused this more than anyone else has, etc. Because with some religious people, that actually is what they were saying or meant, etc, with some of them anyway, etc, and that is what has caused the offense, etc, and is why we have all of this that they are saying about it nowadays.

But those religious people were/are always wrong. (See my other posts)

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Most people think when you are saying that this or that is bad or evil or wrong, that you are saying that they are bad or evil or wrong, and also that you are also saying that it can't be forgiven after this, etc, and that is why they take offense, and is why we have all of this that they are right now saying about it nowadays. That's not what some of us are saying, but that's what they hear you saying, and that's why it causes offense. And religious people have caused this more than anyone else has, etc. Because with some religious people, that actually is what they were saying or meant, etc, with some of them anyway, etc, and that is what has caused the offense, etc, and is why we have all of this that they are saying about it nowadays.

But those religious people were/are always wrong. (See my other posts)

God Bless.

Many, many religious people have taken/do take up the name of God, or the word God, so that they can be or play what they think is God for a time, etc, and in doing so, have committed some of the greatest abuses ever, but without ever having to take any accountability for it, which has also caused the offense, etc.

God Bless.

 

[o_mlly]

Here's one. I've told my partner that wives should be subject to their husbands (I read it somewhere). Am I morally correct in holding to that position?

Give me the moral act that your contemplating specifying the moral end(s) you foresee, your intention, and any circumstances that would affect the morality of the act.

Nope. "Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't understand how the scientific method applies to any of these things.

Methods of ethical decision making have been around for a long time. Noe exactly "scientific" but useful and helpful methods.

methods for ethical decision making - Google Search

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. "Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

The ends would be my wife being subject to me. Or not, depending on the decision. My intention is to ascertain which is the correct position. And the circumstances would be the relationship with my wife.

It's a moral problem. What's the answer? You can use scripture to back up your answer if you like.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I'm sorry. That makes no sense to me.

Let's say someone gathered all the facts concerning their financial situation and then determined that the "best" outcome for them would involve lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.

Would you recommend that course of action?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Methods of ethical decision making have been around for a long time. Noe exactly "scientific" but useful and helpful methods.
View attachment 358278View attachment 358279

methods for ethical decision making - Google Search

How could any of this answer all the other questions I asked?

 

[partinobodycular]

No, as you said, you can't apply the scientific method per se to work out what you should do.

But reality is deterministic... correct?

So in every instance what's considered to be moral is simply the result of antecedent conditions... correct?

It's not the result of what an individual thinks, or what a society thinks. It's the result of what the antecedent conditions dictate... correct?

If it dictates that rape is moral under antecedent conditions 'A', and immoral under antecedent conditions 'B', then it is indeed moral under antecedent conditions 'A', and immoral under antecedent conditions 'B'. There's no way to objectively differentiate between the two... correct?

So if we ask whether something is moral or immoral the answer is simply yes... correct?

 

[Neogaia777]

But reality is deterministic... correct?

So in every instance what's considered to be moral is simply the result of antecedent conditions... correct?

It's not the result of what an individual thinks, or what a society thinks. It's the result of what the antecedent conditions dictate... correct?

If it dictates that rape is moral under antecedent conditions 'A', and immoral under antecedent conditions 'B', then it is indeed moral under antecedent conditions 'A', and immoral under antecedent conditions 'B'. There's no way to objectively differentiate between the two... correct?

So if we ask whether something is moral or immoral the answer is simply yes... correct?

Morality changes and is different with each age and stage of the evolution of man, and is often decided/dictated by that, which was already decided/dictated by deterministic processes, but may very much be a product of man (maybe), and may also be dependent on where he is in his current evolution along with some other factors having to do with where human beings are right now currently at, etc, but all already decided/known/dictated already by deterministic processes already, etc.

But are there absolutes? Like rape for example, etc. It's very, very hard for us to imagine under what kinds of circumstances some things like that could ever be "right", etc, and so most would consider some certain things moral absolutes, etc. And all we can do is debate them as to whether or not they are always absolutes or not, etc.

But determinism does not negate morality. All determinism means is that everything is already known/decided already, and that there is really no such thing as free will choice, and that everything is already set on one predetermined/known, predetermined course already, etc, and really has very little to do with morality, which might just be a human construct maybe, etc. Unless there is a God that considers some things absolute, in which case there might be some people who may have to answer to Him for them at some point, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Morality changes and is different with each age and stage of the evolution of man, and is often decided/dictated by that, which was already decided/dictated by deterministic processes, but may very much be a product of man (maybe), and may also be dependent on where he is in his current evolution along with some other factors having to do with where human beings are right now currently at, etc, but all already decided/known/dictated already by deterministic processes already, etc.

But are there absolutes? Like rape for example, etc. It's very, very hard for us to imagine under what kinds of circumstances some things like that could ever be "right", etc, and so most would consider some certain things moral absolutes, etc. And all we can do is debate them as to whether or not they are always absolutes or not, etc.

But determinism does not negate morality. All determinism means is that everything is already known/decided already, and that there is really no such thing as free will choice, and that everything is already set on one predetermined/known, predetermined course already, etc, and really has very little to do with morality, which might just be a human construct maybe, etc. Unless there is a God that considers some things absolute, in which case there might be some people who may have to answer to Him for them at some point, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

The question you are probably wanting to ask about morality and determinism, probably centers around the question of how an individual person can be held morally accountable/responsible for his or her actions if that person never had a choice in the matter, etc, and that's the question you are probably really wanting to be asking, etc.

Well, as far as here goes, we still have to punish those who have gone against what the majority of our each individual societies has decided should be either right or wrong, etc. This is how we keep and maintain societal order, and ensure our societies don't decend into chaos while we/they are here, etc, and we have to do this, as we don't really have much of a choice in the matter, etc.

And as far as after this is concerned, if a person was to try to use determinism as a defense, etc, then it will boil down to what kind of purpose that person was made for, and whether it can be allowed into Heaven or not, or can be allowed to continue on beyond this here or not, but only be allowed to continue on in another place, etc. This will be shown very, very clearly to the point that it will be undeniable to others before that is ultimately decided either way, etc. Some were simply not made for heaven but only have a purpose in helping others get there, but have no other reason/purpose beyond that ever, etc. Again, this (which each one is) will be 100% shown/demonstrated very, very clearly so that it will be 100% undeniable to all before anything is ultimately decided either way, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And as far as after this is concerned, if a person was to try to use determinism as a defense, etc, then it will boil down to what kind of purpose that person was made for, and whether it can be allowed into Heaven or not, or can be allowed to continue on beyond this here or not, but only be allowed to continue on in another place, etc. This will be shown very, very clearly to the point that it will be undeniable to others before that is ultimately decided either way, etc. Some were simply not made for heaven but only have a purpose in helping others get there, but have no other reason/purpose beyond that ever, etc. Again, this (which each one is) will be 100% shown/demonstrated very, very clearly so that it will be 100% undeniable to all before anything is ultimately decided either way, etc.

God Bless.

You may say, "Well, what if they had a very, very bad upbringing or something, and that was why they could only do bad, or only live for this life, or only do evil/bad while they were here, etc?"

If that person had a purpose that was meant to go beyond this, then it would have shown up at some point in their life while they were here, and if it didn't, then they were never meant to have any higher or greater purpose other than that (or what they lived for or did) (while they were here) that could have gone beyond this here, etc.

Again, it will all be shown very, very clearly so that it will be 100% undeniable to all, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

Did Judas have a choice? Some Gnostics would say he didn’t.

 

[Neogaia777]

Did Judas have a choice? Some Gnostics would say he didn’t.

Jesus expressed regret that he was lost either way (John 17:12). Many wonder what Judas could have become after Jesus if he had not hung himself and instead would have sought out redemption or repentance either way, etc. But as it stands, that was not the Father's will for him, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's say someone gathered all the facts concerning their financial situation and then determined that the "best" outcome for them would involve lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.

Would you recommend that course of action?

No. Why would I?

Look, the facts of the situation are just that. The facts. What you do with them will vary from person to person.

 

[Jerry N.]

Jesus expressed regret that he was lost either way (John 17:12). Many wonder what Judas could have become after Jesus if he had not hung himself and instead would have sought out redemption or repentance either way, etc. But as it stands, that was not the Father's will for him, etc.

God Bless.

Then the question is did Judas become son of perdition during his life or was he born that way? This is actually linked to the questions of objective morality. If he was born that way, he was created for hell. If he became a son of perdition, then it was his choice. I think he chose to do evil, but I’m not sure. He could have been born without a soul, and his destruction/perdition was complete. I’m not SDA, but there is a slight possibility that some people have no soul. Other than the Antichrist, nobody else gets the title.