Is morality objective or subjective?

[nolongerhome]

I hope you're not talking about human cloning. And by genetic modification, I hope you don't mean playing God. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with either. But before you get all hot about the playing God argument I'm using, you'd best figure out what I mean first, because I very much doubt that it's mainstream.

Ignoring the other part of this conversation (about principles, I don't think that was getting us anywhere as I think you were being somewhat contradictory), I'd like to focus on this.

Well, what do you mean by "playing God"?

Where does the "natural" (and therefore moral I would assume) human ability to adapt our environment to our needs become "playing God" (which you clearly believe to be immoral)?

Why is cloning or genetically modifying a human any different to cloning any other natural material? What does the Bible say about any of this?

This is the perfect example of where morality is an intersubjective construction - we face a new situation entirely, through a societal discourse between scientists, ethicists, theologians, politicians, medical practioners etc. consenus is created in an area where before we had little to no guidance because we had no need for guidance.

 

[Zebra1552]

Ignoring the other part of this conversation (about principles, I don't think that was getting us anywhere as I think you were being somewhat contradictory), I'd like to focus on this.

Well, what do you mean by "playing God"?

I mean manipulating things to your own ends in order to create some sort of ideal thing. Not eliminating genetic disease or disorder, that's medicinal, I'm talking about basically deciding what traits are or are not desirable in the 'ideal human'.

Where does the "natural" (and therefore moral I would assume) human ability to adapt our environment to our needs become "playing God" (which you clearly believe to be immoral)?

When we start trying to create an ideal person.

Why is cloning or genetically modifying a human any different to cloning any other natural material? What does the Bible say about any of this?

Because as of right now, cloning a human (or an animal for that matter) creates a being with a shorter life and any number of things can go wrong. That is, as of right now, human cloning would be cruel and unloving to the clone.

This is the perfect example of where morality is an intersubjective construction - we face a new situation entirely, through a societal discourse between scientists, ethicists, theologians, politicians, medical practioners etc. consenus is created in an area where before we had little to no guidance because we had no need for guidance.

Which is why I recognize that the Bible is largely conceptual in its morality, but is still objective and absolute.

 

[quatona]

You understand that if there is a God , He probably gets first and final say. But without KNOWING God, it is impossible for you to fully and truthfully comprehend why this is true.

I understand that this is due to the power this hypothetical god has. That´s a perfectly logical explanation.
If you think there is another, a different, a better or a more accurate explanation, feel free to elaborate.

You understand the truth inthe statement. But do you understand why the statement is true?

Yes: because according to your god concept this god has the required power and means to make it true.

You can't without the Holy Spirit.
They aren't my ideas. It is God who says in 1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

In lack of the Holy Spirit and God being members of CF I am left with having conversations with persons who picture themselves mouthpieces of those alleged entities. Since, in this particular case, you were the one responding to my post, I am addressing the response you gave me.
If you feel unable to explain that which you state on behalf of the god you believe in, that´s fine with me. However, this means that it remains unexplained here.

In my experience, claiming that someone can´t understand something unless they believe it beforehand is a preferred strategy of disingenious salesmen and charlatans. I am not saying that you are a charlatan, but unless you can bring something to the table that distinguishes your strategy from theirs I unfortunately don´t know how to tell wheter or not you are one.

 

[nolongerhome]

I mean manipulating things to your own ends in order to create some sort of ideal thing. Not eliminating genetic disease or disorder, that's medicinal, I'm talking about basically deciding what traits are or are not desirable in the 'ideal human'.

When we start trying to create an ideal person.

I think this a fundamentally flawed distinction, because it isn't a distinction at all. I fail to see how your "medicinal" removal of defects such as genetic diseases is any different from deciding what traits are "ideal". You've just inserted an arbitrary point in a continuum of incredibly similar actions and labeled one side of the continuum good and the other bad.

Because as of right now, cloning a human (or an animal for that matter) creates a being with a shorter life and any number of things can go wrong. That is, as of right now, human cloning would be cruel and unloving to the clone.

So, the only reason why you have a problem with it is because our technology is not good enough yet to give it a standard of life comparable to the average human? If the technology was developed that was able to give that standard of life, would you have a problem with it?

Which is why I recognize that the Bible is largely conceptual in its morality, but is still objective and absolute.

You are going to have to explain what you mean by this sentence a bit better - what is a "conceptual morality"? You are clearly trying to differentiate it from some other sort of morality... I'm not sure what you understand that "non-conceptual" (or whatever you would label it) morality to entail.

 

[Zebra1552]

I think this a fundamentally flawed distinction, because it isn't a distinction at all. I fail to see how your "medicinal" removal of defects such as genetic diseases is any different from deciding what traits are "ideal". You've just inserted an arbitrary point in a continuum of incredibly similar actions and labeled one side of the continuum good and the other bad.

It's a distinction based upon motive, not means.

So, the only reason why you have a problem with it is because our technology is not good enough yet to give it a standard of life comparable to the average human? If the technology was developed that was able to give that standard of life, would you have a problem with it?

Correct. I would also have a problem with using clones to harvest organs and tissue, because that too is unloving. It also violates their free will.

You are going to have to explain what you mean by this sentence a bit better - what is a "conceptual morality"? You are clearly trying to differentiate it from some other sort of morality... I'm not sure what you understand that "non-conceptual" (or whatever you would label it) morality to entail.

Christianity is not simply a rulebook, the morality contained in the Bible is more set around principles and concepts than hard, fast rules.

 

[nolongerhome]

It's a distinction based upon motive, not means.

Again, I fail to see the distinction. The motivation behind removing "genetic defects" is the same as the one behind "trying to create an ideal human" - it is to improve the human body through technological means.

Correct. I would also have a problem with using clones to harvest organs and tissue, because that too is unloving. It also violates their free will.

Fair enough, we can agree about that

Christianity is not simply a rulebook, the morality contained in the Bible is more set around principles and concepts than hard, fast rules.

Are these principles and concepts hard and fast? If so, are they any different to hard and fast rules? If not, how can they be considered to be objective?

 

[Zebra1552]

Again, I fail to see the distinction. The motivation behind removing "genetic defects" is the same as the one behind "trying to create an ideal human" - it is to improve the human body through technological means.

No. Trying to create an ideal human involves messing with the entire human genome.

Fair enough, we can agree about that

About time we agree.

Are these principles and concepts hard and fast? If so, are they any different to hard and fast rules? If not, how can they be considered to be objective?

The principles and concepts do not change, how they are implemented do.

 

[nolongerhome]

No. Trying to create an ideal human involves messing with the entire human genome.

So piecemeal manipulation of specific parts of the genome is fine, but piecemeal manipulation of specific parts of the genome expanded and applied to the whole of the genome is not fine?

What makes trying to change a part different to trying to change the whole, which is just an assembly of parts?

About time we agree.

The principles and concepts do not change, how they are implemented do.

So morality is objective and we subjectively implement it?

How should one read the Bible - it is revealing the principles and concepts only? Or is it doing that and also giving a guide for implementation? It seems to me to do both, and generally both are attributed to the direct word of God - are God's instructions for the implementation of the principles and concepts of morality to be considered the objectively true/best way of implementing the principles and concepts?

 

[Zebra1552]

So piecemeal manipulation of specific parts of the genome is fine, but piecemeal manipulation of specific parts of the genome expanded and applied to the whole of the genome is not fine?

Correct.

What makes trying to change a part different to trying to change the whole, which is just an assembly of parts?

Because it is creating that which is not ours to create. God does not cause diseases, sin does. God does create each person to be unique, and applying changes to the entire genome defeats that.

So morality is objective and we subjectively implement it?

Subjectively implement it? Um, applying the same principles differently to fit different scenarios is not subjective unless one isn't following the principles.

How should one read the Bible - it is revealing the principles and concepts only? Or is it doing that and also giving a guide for implementation?

One should read the Bible with context: culture, and language in mind. The Bible has prime examples of implementation already. For example, treating our bodies like they are a temple: this cannot be done by eating fatty foods and being lazy, or by smoking, or doing illegal drugs, etc.

It seems to me to do both, and generally both are attributed to the direct word of God - are God's instructions for the implementation of the principles and concepts of morality to be considered the objectively true/best way of implementing the principles and concepts?

Perhaps you could clarify your question using an example?

 

[nolongerhome]

Because it is creating that which is not ours to create. God does not cause diseases, sin does. God does create each person to be unique, and applying changes to the entire genome defeats that.

So God creates us, but he doesn't create and therefore cause disease to exist? And therefore we can fight disease, but we can't try to effect anything that isn't strictly disease related?

I'm sorry, but how do diseases exist other than through God's creation if your creator God created the whole universe? How is our intervention in any other aspect of the universe any different to intervening in relation to human genetics?

I really have had major problems with all of your distinctions on this point, and I think your ideas on who/what is created by God are completely inconsistent. You've made a whole bunch of arbitrary distinctions (be it in what God is/is not responsible for, for manipulation we can/can't make, to the extent or number of manipulations we can/can't make).

Subjectively implement it? Um, applying the same principles differently to fit different scenarios is not subjective unless one isn't following the principles.

One should read the Bible with context: culture, and language in mind. The Bible has prime examples of implementation already. For example, treating our bodies like they are a temple: this cannot be done by eating fatty foods and being lazy, or by smoking, or doing illegal drugs, etc.

Perhaps you could clarify your question using an example?

I guess my query here was how we know how to implement objective moral principles if, as you say, the way in which we implement them changes through time. I guess I am struggling to see your distinction between implementation and the principles of morality, and it seems like one part is stable, objective, while the other has an element of relativism, being context dependent, which I'm finding hard to reconcile.

 

[sidhe]

So God creates us, but he doesn't create and therefore cause disease to exist? And therefore we can fight disease, but we can't try to effect anything that isn't strictly disease related?

I'm sorry, but how do diseases exist other than through God's creation if your creator God created the whole universe? How is our intervention in any other aspect of the universe any different to intervening in relation to human genetics?

I really have had major problems with all of your distinctions on this point, and I think your ideas on who/what is created by God are completely inconsistent. You've made a whole bunch of arbitrary distinctions (be it in what God is/is not responsible for, for manipulation we can/can't make, to the extent or number of manipulations we can/can't make).

I think I know what GC is getting at (though I disagree with his reasoning...whole view of "problem of evil"/dualism thing); genetic alterations for purely cosmetic reasons ("I want my child to have blue eyes!") would be immoral, whereas those with tangible benefits ("I want my child to have working eyes!") would not. How one defines "cosmetic" and "tangible benefit" is where the moral debate would be - is preventing ugly cosmetic, or tangible benefit given society's treatment of the unattractive? Would enhancing intelligence beyond preventing mental handicaps be moral, or even ultimately beneficial to the society (why would someone with a 200 IQ want to be a cashier?, for example)?

 

[Zebra1552]

I think I know what GC is getting at (though I disagree with his reasoning...whole view of "problem of evil"/dualism thing); genetic alterations for purely cosmetic reasons ("I want my child to have blue eyes!") would be immoral, whereas those with tangible benefits ("I want my child to have working eyes!") would not. How one defines "cosmetic" and "tangible benefit" is where the moral debate would be - is preventing ugly cosmetic, or tangible benefit given society's treatment of the unattractive? Would enhancing intelligence beyond preventing mental handicaps be moral, or even ultimately beneficial to the society (why would someone with a 200 IQ want to be a cashier?, for example)?

Indeed... and put better than I could. Thanks!

 

[Zebra1552]

So God creates us, but he doesn't create and therefore cause disease to exist? And therefore we can fight disease, but we can't try to effect anything that isn't strictly disease related?

The human body is not designed to have cancer, arthritis, diabetes, etc. Disease, speaking broadly, comes from sin. Fighting sin is something we've been doing since day one.

I'm sorry, but how do diseases exist other than through God's creation if your creator God created the whole universe?

You're running into the problem of evil a bit there. I had a set response to this in the form of an argument, I'll find it for you...
[update]
Here we are. The thread was deleted, I guess, but I have a cool app for Firefox, so all wasn't lost.

I propose to you the following:

1. God exists, and is omnipotent.
2. God is also omniscient.
3. The world currently has sin in it.
4. Either God's omniscience is limited, or God's omnipotence is limited.
5. If God's omniscience is limited and not limited by Himself, then God is not actually omniscient. Same with God's omnipotence.
6. Because the world currently has sin in it, God's omnipotence is limited.
7. Is God's omnipotence limited, is it limited by God Himself?
8. ^ Yes, it is. It is limited by God's own morals: that man have free will and not be forced to serve Him. This is evidenced by many, many things, such as God's requests that we follow Him: if God could make us choose, it would be foolish of Him to ask rather than simply make us.
9. Given the above, does God choose people for salvation, or do they choose Him?
10. God chooses people based on His knowledge of all possible futures.
11. We also choose God.

Let me further explain that God letting the fall happen is not the same as Him causing it to happen.

How is our intervention in any other aspect of the universe any different to intervening in relation to human genetics?

I really have had major problems with all of your distinctions on this point, and I think your ideas on who/what is created by God are completely inconsistent. You've made a whole bunch of arbitrary distinctions (be it in what God is/is not responsible for, for manipulation we can/can't make, to the extent or number of manipulations we can/can't make).

Then you are misunderstanding my position, because the distinction is there and is consistent.

I guess my query here was how we know how to implement objective moral principles if, as you say, the way in which we implement them changes through time. I guess I am struggling to see your distinction between implementation and the principles of morality, and it seems like one part is stable, objective, while the other has an element of relativism, being context dependent, which I'm finding hard to reconcile.

The principles themselves do not change, how they are implemented does not change (methodology), but the culture in which they are implemented changes. I misspoke earlier.

 

[Zebra1552]

< Staff edit > < Staff edit > < Staff edit > I believe non-Christians can understand it on the same cognitive level Christians do, but not on a spiritual one. < Staff edit > < Staff edit > < Staff edit >

 

[Hisbygrace]

Mod Hat On

This bickering back and forth needs to stop.
The thread has moved off topic and needs to
return to topic. Please if you cannot discuss
the topic issue without becoming rude and flaming
take a break from it for a bit.

Mod Hat Off
​

 

[nolongerhome]

I think I know what GC is getting at (though I disagree with his reasoning...whole view of "problem of evil"/dualism thing); genetic alterations for purely cosmetic reasons ("I want my child to have blue eyes!") would be immoral, whereas those with tangible benefits ("I want my child to have working eyes!") would not. How one defines "cosmetic" and "tangible benefit" is where the moral debate would be - is preventing ugly cosmetic, or tangible benefit given society's treatment of the unattractive? Would enhancing intelligence beyond preventing mental handicaps be moral, or even ultimately beneficial to the society (why would someone with a 200 IQ want to be a cashier?, for example)?

While I think that this is better expressed, I don't think it really solves the issue of creating arbitrary distinctions between moral and immoral changes - as you point out - as you clearly understand yourself it is entirely possible for a cosmetic change to be a tangible benefit (and for a tangible benefit to result is a cosmetic change). You also raise a further question about the relationship of morality and utility - is it possible for something to moral but non-beneficial from a purely utilitarian standpoint? Is utility to measured at the level of the individual or at the level of society?

I also don't really see how there are Biblical principles that would really help us make a non-arbitrary distinction in this matter, because simply put not even the thought of our current capability to manipulate the natural world would have existed at the time of writing - it simply couldn't have been considered.

 

[nolongerhome]

The human body is not designed to have cancer, arthritis, diabetes, etc. Disease, speaking broadly, comes from sin. Fighting sin is something we've been doing since day one.

We aren't going to agree on this. The human body isn't designed to have anything, it is an organic life form that has evolved. It is imperfect, as all organic life forms are imperfect, and susceptible to disease. These imperfections are as naturally occurring as our bodies are. If you are going to claim that something designed our bodies, then I don't see how you can justify the word games you employ to avoid attributing our natural imperfections to the designer.

1. God exists, and is omnipotent.
2. God is also omniscient.
3. The world currently has sin in it.
4. Either God's omniscience is limited, or God's omnipotence is limited.
5. If God's omniscience is limited and not limited by Himself, then God is not actually omniscient. Same with God's omnipotence.
6. Because the world currently has sin in it, God's omnipotence is limited.
7. Is God's omnipotence limited, is it limited by God Himself?
8. ^ Yes, it is. It is limited by God's own morals: that man have free will and not be forced to serve Him. This is evidenced by many, many things, such as God's requests that we follow Him: if God could make us choose, it would be foolish of Him to ask rather than simply make us.
9. Given the above, does God choose people for salvation, or do they choose Him?
10. God chooses people based on His knowledge of all possible futures.
11. We also choose God.

The problem here is in the unannounced assumption between Points 3 and 4 - that God is purely good and would not desire/consent for sin and its consequences to exist. That assumption demands that you question either or both his omnipotence and omniscience for the existence of sin. It strikes me that the answer that makes more sense then what you have outlined (that an omnipotent being limited their power, which is paradoxical) is to maintain that God is omnipotent and omniscient and allows evil to exist for whatever reason. You can't have a limited omnipotence - it ceases to be omnipotence.

You are forced into a paradoxical situation because of that hidden assumption. When you face a paradoxical situation you should first look to your assumptions and ensure they are valid. In this case, there is reason to believe that they aren't. Not believing in the false dichotomy between good and evil, I'm not saying that God is evil. I'm just saying that God being purely good doesn't fit well with what we see around us. Explaining this away through the use of your illogical progression isn't convincing.

Let me further explain that God letting the fall happen is not the same as Him causing it to happen.

If you are the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the world and you let something happen you have caused it to happen. Why? Because you created the world and therefore caused everything to happen, and you know all the consequences of your actions and can therefore foresee all the consequences.

The principles themselves do not change, how they are implemented does not change (methodology), but the culture in which they are implemented changes. I misspoke earlier.

That at least seems more consistent than what you were talking about earlier. I obviously still have issues with it, but I think you are still so far from demonstrating what the unchanging principles of morality that I am willing to just agree to disagree with you

 

[Zebra1552]

While I think that this is better expressed, I don't think it really solves the issue of creating arbitrary distinctions between moral and immoral changes - as you point out - as you clearly understand yourself it is entirely possible for a cosmetic change to be a tangible benefit (and for a tangible benefit to result is a cosmetic change).

Preventing disease and going for a higher IQ are clearly different. Preventing a birth defect and going for a taller kid are also clearly different. How is the difference arbitrary?

I also don't really see how there are Biblical principles that would really help us make a non-arbitrary distinction in this matter, because simply put not even the thought of our current capability to manipulate the natural world would have existed at the time of writing - it simply couldn't have been considered.

Remember the tower of Babel? That's a good principle that applies: doing things specifically to make a name for ourselves, and be the pinnacle of technology.

 

[nolongerhome]

Preventing disease and going for a higher IQ are clearly different. Preventing a birth defect and going for a taller kid are also clearly different. How is the difference arbitrary?

All are simply manipulating the genetic codes that come to define who we are as human beings. A birth defect, height, genetic impacts on IQ, disease - all are naturally occurring phenomenon that we now have the power to change.

Mutation of genes is a naturally occurring phenomenon. We wouldn't exist as human beings if millions of years of mutations had not occurred. Mutations are neither "good" nor "evil" - they are amoral. Our genetic code is amoral. Some mutations are more useful in certain situation than others (height might be useful in some societies, being short would help elsewhere, where it is hot it is better to be slim and slender, where it is cold it is good to have more fat etc. etc. etc.). That is all context and perception dependent, it has nothing to do with the change itself.

Your world view is full of false, unnecessary, non-existent dichotomies.

 

[Zebra1552]

We aren't going to agree on this. The human body isn't designed to have anything, it is an organic life form that has evolved.

Not from a Christian perspective, the human body is designed in many ways for many things. For example, the human body was not designed to deteriorate and age. We see this in Genesis.

It is imperfect, as all organic life forms are imperfect, and susceptible to disease. These imperfections are as naturally occurring as our bodies are. If you are going to claim that something designed our bodies, then I don't see how you can justify the word games you employ to avoid attributing our natural imperfections to the designer.

I'm not playing word games at all. Follow the argument.

The problem here is in the unannounced assumption between Points 3 and 4 - that God is purely good and would not desire/consent for sin and its consequences to exist.

Have you opened the Bible lately? It doesn't need to be announced, it's general knowledge.

That assumption demands that you question either or both his omnipotence and omniscience for the existence of sin. It strikes me that the answer that makes more sense then what you have outlined (that an omnipotent being limited their power, which is paradoxical) is to maintain that God is omnipotent and omniscient and allows evil to exist for whatever reason. You can't have a limited omnipotence - it ceases to be omnipotence.

How is God's omniscience limited given that God is good?
You certainly can have limited power. I have the power to kill people, knowing the martial arts I do, but I don't go around doing that because I follow moral principles that guide me not to. How is that paradoxical?

You are forced into a paradoxical situation because of that hidden assumption. When you face a paradoxical situation you should first look to your assumptions and ensure they are valid. In this case, there is reason to believe that they aren't. Not believing in the false dichotomy between good and evil, I'm not saying that God is evil. I'm just saying that God being purely good doesn't fit well with what we see around us. Explaining this away through the use of your illogical progression isn't convincing.

The only thing that doesn't add up is what you expect to see in your limited idea of God's character, and what you see in the world. You would expect a perfectly good God to do everything you consider good. Is it good to force people to follow God's will? Is it good to let some people lead other people astray? Is it good to allow people who wish to follow God to lack experience with conflict? Your assumption about God's character fails to take any of those questions and more like them into consideration when you assert the above.

If you are the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the world and you let something happen you have caused it to happen. Why? Because you created the world and therefore caused everything to happen, and you know all the consequences of your actions and can therefore foresee all the consequences.

This is an assumption on your part: creation is not causation. People still have free will, even if God knows what will happen.

That at least seems more consistent than what you were talking about earlier. I obviously still have issues with it, but I think you are still so far from demonstrating what the unchanging principles of morality that I am willing to just agree to disagree with you

That's a question for people with theological backgrounds, not those unfamiliar with it.