I disagree. I know a lot of people who believe Sin is a real thing who believe nobody is able to live a sinless life; and can even provide scripture to back this claim up.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree. I know a lot of people who believe Sin is a real thing who believe nobody is able to live a sinless life; and can even provide scripture to back this claim up.The response from anyone who does not believe that sin exists as a metaphysical reality is ‘yes’.
I disagree! Anything objective is the same regardless of scenario. Using Arithmetic, 1+1=2 regardless of if you are counting stones, apples, money, or anything else; that which is objective is true regardless of extenuating circumstancesYes and objective morality can accommodate each and every alternative position. Under objective morality we dont have to stick to the same application for each scenario. An objective moral truth can be found for each different scenario.
And who decides when it is right to be honest, and when it is wrong to be honest? The person faced with the moral decision. This is subjective; not objective.Sometimes it may be objective right to be honest and other times it may be objective wrong to be honest depending on the consequences of those actions.
Everything you just described is subjective, but you keep calling it objective.Objective morality also allows for greater moral truths to be considered depending on the situation which may take priority. But all these different scenarios don’t make a case for subjective morality. People get confused that just because there are different situations morality must be subjective because we cannot apply the same objective moral to each situation.
But as mentioned this is not objective morality but universal morality which makes moral values unchangable in different situations. So under the moral value of honesty a person must be honest in every situations regardless of circumstances. Whereas objective morality allows us to find an objective truth in each different situation. Sometimes it may be morally right to be honest and sometimes not if a greater moral value is being breached.
I think some people think complicating a situation = subjective morality. But it doesn’t.
But still; he did not prove it to be wrong to kill the mentally handicap, he just said it was wrong. He is basing this on his personal beliefs which makes it completely subjective.Thats why it pays to listen to the whole video. He was talking about how objective moral truths work. He was saying that objective morality is a truth that stands independent of human opinion ie form the video.
If the proponents of Eugenics won the debate and convinced the entire world to adopt the theory of Eugenics it would still be morally wrong to kill/eliminate the mentally disabled. It would be morally wrong regardless of what everyone thought.
Therefore we must realise when someone says moral realism must be false because there are various forms of morality around the world depending on the culture. They must realise that this doesn’t show that moral realism is false for the very same reason that the existence of competing scientific theories doesn’t show that science is subjective or based on the culture or individual.
Well, I think God is the One with objective morality. So, I do not think I can prove He exists; so likewise I can't prove there is His objective morality. All I can do is offer what I believe and understand.
I understand there is objective morality for humans, but on our own without God we can't get it right. We need to be personally guided by God so we are on the right track.
But by the standards of proof which I have encountered with ones claiming to be atheists, no I can not prove this by atheistic standards. Actually, it is not clear to me what they would consider to be proof of God's existence and His objective morality.
Yes, but we can not please Him by staying the way we are; so we need how our Heavenly Father changes us to be like Jesus who is so pleasing.
This is a basic, which I meant by referring us to Romans 8:29.
His morals are oriented, then, to us becoming like Jesus and with this being able to share as family.
So, then, objective morals include how hate is wrong, and unforgiveness . . . not only outwardly practical morals.
But humans can have their objectives which have them rejecting God's morals, plus even saying God hates them because He does to approve of their stuff.
All I can do is look up historical events that can verify what I recall, I don't recall a great deal. However some I have verified, some I am still looking.
Relative morality is objective morality. If it is a fact that "in X situation you should do Y, but in P situation you should do Q", then morality is still objective. Relative and objective are not opposed. Relative is opposed to absolute.That seems to be the very embodiment of relative morality
Relative and subjective are closer to the same, and absolute and objective are closer to the sameRelative morality is objective morality. If it is a fact that "in X situation you should do Y, but in P situation you should do Q", then morality is still objective. Relative and objective are not opposed. Relative is opposed to absolute.
Nope. Absolute vs relative and subjective vs objective. Relative and absolute are both under the umbrella of objective.Relative and subjective are closer to the same, and absolute and objective are closer to the same
I think you may have missed my points. It is eminently possible to live a sinless life if one does not ascribe to the belief that sin (as a biblical concept) really exists.I disagree. I know a lot of people who believe Sin is a real thing who believe nobody is able to live a sinless life; and can even provide scripture to back this claim up.
Once again you are confusing absolute and objective morality. For example under absolute morality you can never kill regardless of the circumstances. Whereas under objective morality there will be an objectively right action for each changing circumstance.I disagree! Anything objective is the same regardless of scenario. Using Arithmetic, 1+1=2 regardless of if you are counting stones, apples, money, or anything else; that which is objective is true regardless of extenuating circumstances
No the person faced with the moral decision has no say in the matter when applied to lived experience. Honesty stands as a moral truth regardless of their views. Thats because honesty is needed in debates/arguements between people to make them coherent. Without honesty you can never have a coherent debate.And who decides when it is right to be honest, and when it is wrong to be honest? The person faced with the moral decision. This is subjective; not objective.
That link just describes subjective and objective morality. It didnt mention universal or absolute morality. Here is a link that explains the difference between the two.Everything you just described is subjective, but you keep calling it objective.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Where you are going wrong is conflating personal opinion (subjective morality) with situational circumstances (relative morality). The only thing dictating and influencing the view in subjective morality is the person.As you can see from the above link, that which is objective is based on measurable fact, that which is subjective takes opinions, and extenuating circumstances into consideration. If you have to decide when telling the truth is the right thing to do or not based on extenuating circumstances, opinions, and personal beliefs, you are describing a subjective situation
Thats because that video was only defining objective morality. There is another video from the same author giving an argument for objective morality or moral realism. The argument goes like thisBut still; he did not prove it to be wrong to kill the mentally handicap, he just said it was wrong. He is basing this on his personal beliefs which makes it completely subjective.
You are probably right. As the different circumstances dictate what should be done it is more relative. But we can still determine an objectively right thing to do in each of those different circumstances. It does get confusing and splitting hairs but there is a difference. But thankyou for your input.That seems to be the very embodiment of relative morality. My vote is thus cast; there is no case made for an objective morality.
Not being able to make any sense of the God references (because there is no God) I withdraw from this discussion in atheistic friendship.
I think objective morality is strict but only for the situation it applies to. So a moral wrong like killing is not necessarily wrong as a strict rule in every situation of killing. That would be absolute morality.Mmm. We may have to get some semantic issues out of the way first. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a strict objective morality or using the term more as something synonymous to a best utilitarian morality, or maybe something else.
Strict objective morality is defined as a moral proposition whose truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Is that what you mean? I ask because, remember that God is a sentient subject. Would you say your idea of objective morality means it's true apart from God?
Thats me lol.There is the practical arithmetic of the apple seller. He sets a price of $1.50 per apple. There is a common understanding that an apple is the fruit of the malus domestica. It's a physical thing we can point at, pick up, bite into, digest. A customer offers to buy two of these things, and he knows he has to offer $3.00 in exchange.
Everybody knows that. One thing is $1.50, therefore two things is $3.00.
But then there's always that $@#^% who says, "Wait a minute. Not all these apples are the same size. I don't want to pay the same price for my small apples that he's paying for his large apples."
You mean decerning personThe statement of that troublemaker
But does that mean there is no objective way to settle things such as measuring apples by weight.has taken a step from the practical, physical thing everyone knows toward an abstraction no one will ever agree on. Suddenly, we don't know what "apple" means, so we don't know what it means to request purchase of some set of things.
That's where the deeper aspects of number theory take off. At it's root it becomes the question: What is a number? If we can't define a number, we can't know what 1+1 means. That question was more or less settled by the Principia Mathematica of 1910, but the agony of the journey in getting there has left most mathematicians unsure whether we will ever be able to define number concisely.
So, you can rest easy in the certainty of simple and obvious physical things, but you can't use those physical things as an argument to prove an abstraction. The apple seller can shrug and say, "That's the price. Take or leave it." But once he steps off into the deep end of trying to define "apple" as an abstraction, he's dead meat.
OKObjective morality is an abstraction. 1+1=2 does not apply.
Well, for God it is subjective, I suppose we could say, since it is His morality. But because God is the only One who is good, it is also objectively good . . . and this includes because His way is for our own good . . . while also oriented to the good He desires, which I have offered is that He will have many children who are like Jesus > Romans 8:29.Even granting that God exists, why is morality objective to him?
Yeah I think that example just complicates things. It wasn’t so much about Gods immortality but about God existing in a different realm where we cannot apply the same understanding and logic that humans use in our worldly realm when it comes to morality.Again, why does God's immortality have any bearing on his morality?
The moral argument for God states that if there are objective morals then there has to be a moral law giver that is outside humans and yet with understanding of morals and humans as morals can only apply to sentient beings. Therefore it follows that this moral law giver has to be a transcendent being like God as who else is beyond humans yet understands them.This doesn't explain why we should conclude there is a "law giver" when we have a law of nature. I suspect that it's because we assume that a law of nature is like a law of government, however, that is not a justifiable comparison.
No just giving you an example of how honesty is an implicit moral value in debates and any interaction between humans when trying to determine the truth or fact of the matter. Therefore it is independent of humans and stands regardless of what people’s personal view is and so is an objective moral truth.Are you suggesting that I am bering dishonest in this discussion?
As the example of honesty is applied above we can determine the moral truth of honesty without the need to show it was handed down as a decree from a higher power. Just like the law of gravity stands as a fact/truth when we walk off a cliff the truth of honesty is seen as a truth when we try to debate without honesty and the interaction breaks down and becomes incoherent.Since I believe morality to be subjective that there needs to be someone who sets what we consider to be morally good and bad. And this is quite unlike the need for a lawgiver for the laws of nature such as gravity, since those laws are inherent properties of the universe, not decfrees handed down by some higher-ranked entity.
The thing is there is a set of morals that all people know of regardless of what society or culture we come from. That points to a common knowledge of moral truths. It’s just like the argument as to whether math is created or discovered.However, I don't see why we should conclude there is some external moral lawgiver just because most people have a great deal of agreement of what is morally good and what is morally bad. I think that it's perfectly plausible that we create our own morality, and the similarities between my moralityy and my neighboiurs stem from the fact that we both live in the same society. Morality is a social construct.
Try and take honesty out of a debate or argument or even discussion between people and see how far they get before things break down and become incoherent. So because morals like honesty are real in lived situations despite people’s opinions that they are not this shows that values like honesty are an independent fact/truth outside humans (not based on subjective views).You haven';t shown this to be the case.
I have just given the example above with the moral value of honesty. I think that’s a pretty non-extreme example. As for your example of smacking a child it will depend on the circumstances. We cannot just say its right or wrong across the board with a strict rule. That is not how objective morals work. You would have to be more specific.No it can't. I suspect that you will try to show an example using an extreme case, such as rape or murder. However, if you can show that morality is objective, then it should work for ANY case, not just the extreme ones. So, can you show me, objectively, that it is right or wrong to smack a disobedient child?
I don’t think you understand what is meant by lived experience. It’s about how people act/react and about the practical application of morals rather than what people say in their personal views. Quite often someone may have the view that stealing is OK but then when someone steals from them they object.Of course, lived experience is a completely subjective thing, so I don't see how you can use that to support your claim that there is any objective morality.
I understand there is objective morality for humans, but on our own without God we can't get it right. We need to be personally guided by God so we are on the right track.
I don't think objective morality is the same as the objective rule that something will drop because of the law of gravity. I think humans have much more difficulty in determining what is morally right.Why would this be the case? We haven't needed God in order to figure out other objective things.
shall we? >For me, testable evidence that withstands testing would be very compelling evidence, but that's getting outside the scope of this thread.
Let's see what the moderators do with this >That's something that never made sense to me. God made us with flaws and demands that we change from the way he made us in order for him to be pleased.
It leaves me with many unanswered questions.
Why did God feel the need to make us in order for him to achieve pleasure? If it was that important, why didn't he make us the right way to begin with?
I sort of get what you mean and morality can be that way. It’s like most things injecting the observer into the situation complicates things and we could make a case that everything including the science is in the eye of the beholder.
I think objective morality can be determined without God as certain moral truths apply because of the way they work in lived experience.
But does that mean there is no objective way to settle things such as measuring apples by weight.
Well, for God it is subjective, I suppose we could say, since it is His morality. But because God is the only One who is good, it is also objectively good . . . and this includes because His way is for our own good . . . while also oriented to the good He desires, which I have offered is that He will have many children who are like Jesus > Romans 8:29.
But there is morality which is more practical, I would say, like sexual morality of behavior.
But Jesus is concerned about if we lust for someone who is not ours, if we covet another's spouse. So, there is morality emotional and concerning the desires of our heart, deeper than only our behavior.
In any case, the objectivity of the morality is partly related to what is for our good, because God cares about us. I can not genuinely love others while I am giving in to lust, meaning what is merely dominating and demanding drive for pleasure; I mean what has me trying to only or mainly use another person, instead of loving kindly and tenderly and gently and humbly and caring about the person more than I care about what the person does for me.
I would say such items are included in what makes God's morality objectively good. They are for our own good, since "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16).
Plus, God knows which spirit has a person doing things. In case He knows He will not have someone doing certain things . . . this effects which things He says are ok and which are not; if He knows He will not have us doing a certain item, this makes that thing subjectively wrong, by God knowing He does not approve of it, plus it is objectively wrong since it is not His Spirit having us do it.
Because He knows if He is the One who has people doing certain things or not. Certain items might make no real difference, but the spirit causing them can be deeply ruining of a person, if it is not God in the person blessing the person to do it. So, this is included in what makes something objectively good or not.
There is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," we have in Ephesians 2:2. Satan's selfish spirit isolates people and messes them up with dominating and controlling drives for pleasure, and the nasty and negative ways of reacting to not getting what people require and demand. God wants us to have peace and "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30) through Jesus, instead . . . not the cruel and unkind sorts of anger and frustration and arguing and blaming and stress and unforgiveness which come with people trying to make their own thing happen without first sharing with God in His peace with His creativity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?