Is there Objective Morality?

[Ana the Ist]

That isn't philosophy, it's political satire...

It's also a philosophical treatise about the limits of objective morality and rational thinking.

I don't know why people dismiss political philosophy as if it's something lesser than the "pure" philosophers.

Political philosophy has a rather significant track record of preempting pure philosophy.

 

[ottawak]

I know this doesn't prove objective morality but I was speaking as far as Christain belief is concerned. Isn't Christianity based on there being one moral truth. I know its just a claim in the secular world but for Christians its not just a claim. It seems everything goes back to one truth.

As moral and rational beings we believe there are certain moral truths. This is a fundemental axion all civilisation is built on. Jesus is making the bold claim that His truth or way is the only truth. That the truth humans seek leads back to Christ. Its a challenge to us in that we seek truth and argue for truth as though there is one truth. Christ is sending out the claim that he is that truth we are looking for.

But Christ is not the one making the claim--that's on you. I put it to you that you claim that there is objective morality and that "biblical" morality is that objective morality because you want to impose it on people who do not share your faith. That's the self interest.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's also a philosophical treatise about the limits of objective morality and rational thinking.

I don't know why people dismiss political philosophy as if it's something lesser than the "pure" philosophers.

Political philosophy has a rather significant track record of preempting pure philosophy.

The cultural context is British colonialism in Ireland. Swift was satirizing the British policies in that country, suggesting the only thing more cruel they could do was eating Irish children.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The cultural context is British colonialism in Ireland.

Yup.

Swift was satirizing the British policies in that country, suggesting the only thing more cruel they could do was eating Irish children.

Ehhh....sort of. That's the obvious thing. If that was the intent though, he didn't have to do it from an objective rationalist moral perspective.

People tend to think of philosophers only from the "pure philosophy" standpoint. The people who approach difficult questions at the point of abstraction.

This is wrong, imo, because it doesn't seem to matter what exactly a philosopher says....but how well they say it....and the degree of novelty it has. These are why we hear a lot about guys like Hegel and little about guys like Stirner. If we strip away all of the academic gobbledygook of Hegel....you don't end up with much in the way of anything novel or interesting. It's possible I'm just not understanding Hegel fully...but given the track record of his students, nobody does or he isn't saying much of substance.

Stirner wrote little by comparison, didn't really have a following, and doesn't seem widely known or appreciated by the field of philosophy. He's not a good writer. He goes on and on in overly dramatic prose beating his points to death. That's a shame, because again, once you strip away the nonsense....I think Stirner said a lot more than Hegel though he barely made it onto the list of notable philosophers.

The context for A Modest Proposal isn't just political or social. It's written in a time when post enlightenment rationalist thinking was continuing to dominate intellectual life. It was a time when scholars were increasingly certain that objective descriptions of reality would eventually explain everything...and subjective opinion would matter much less.

In that context, it is a deliberate attempt to blatantly offend the basic moral sentiments of everyone while constructing a completely objectively rational argument for a solution to a social problem.

You shouldn't dismiss someone as not addressing a philosophical question simply because they're not pursuing a reputation as a philosopher. If I were to go out and ask people who Adam Smith was, I doubt many would be able to answer that he's often known for "inventing capitalism". If I happened upon the odd political philosopher or economist....they might more correctly describe him as the "father of all economics". Fewer still will remember, or even bother to mention, that most of his career was spent as a moral and ethical philosopher who taught and wrote on morality (I think he's a moral "pragmatist") for years before ever writing The Wealth of Nations. If you think it's not loaded with considerations of morality and how they affect behavior, you haven't read it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I put it to you that you claim that there is objective morality and that "biblical" morality is that objective morality because you want to impose it on people who do not share your faith. That's the self interest.

That's most people though...not just Christians.

Everyone running around calling people "islamaphobic" or "transphobic" or "insert-identity-group-phobic"....or broad brushing everyone who disagrees with them as "nazis" or "white supremacists" or whatever....

Those people are doing the same thing. They're imposing their "sense" of morality on others by lobbing moral accusations against them.

Frankly, I liked it better when the Christians did it. They may not have liked me....but they didn't actively try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them from speaking.

 

[stevevw]

But Christ is not the one making the claim--that's on you. I put it to you that you claim that there is objective morality and that "biblical" morality is that objective morality because you want to impose it on people who do not share your faith. That's the self interest.

Sorry I missed this post. Didn't Christ say
“I am the way and the truth and the life".

 

[stevevw]

That's most people though...not just Christians.

Everyone running around calling people "islamaphobic" or "transphobic" or "insert-identity-group-phobic"....or broad brushing everyone who disagrees with them as "nazis" or "white supremacists" or whatever....

Those people are doing the same thing. They're imposing their "sense" of morality on others by lobbing moral accusations against them.

Frankly, I liked it better when the Christians did it. They may not have liked me....but they didn't actively try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them from speaking.

I agree. People don't just give their subjective view but claim a truth. When people buy into ideologies they are actually giving up their freedom to find the the "truth" in favor of the identity groups truth. The ironic thing is people end up being more bound up when buying into ideologies than having freedom of thought.

 

[stevevw]

It's a claim regardless of who makes it.

Not really. Jesus claimed He was the "Truth" above all other claimed truths. Today's idea of truth in a postmodern society in a subjective/relative one. In other words they claim there is no truth and that many truths apply. So making a claim that there is only one "truth" is different.

You wouldn't need any faith if it wasn't.

True but that's not the point. Most religions claim there are many gods and from this many truths. The Christian faith claims there is only one truth. Its a claim statement from a person who lived around 2,000 years ago.

Its either true or its a lie. Seeming this claim comes from the same faith that states "thou shall not lie" its a pretty significant claim compared to all other faiths. Its a pretty significant claim period.

That's not a rational argument,

All morals begin with a belief and built upon so its beyond rationality. But in a way its not irrational because we can look throughout history at patterns of behavior to see how these moral truths have been extracted from thousands of years of abstracting them and extracting what works and provides stability in a chaotic world. In that sense they are rational and every bit facts as physical laws.

and I don't think I'd call us moral beings.

Of course we are moral beings by the fact that we have to live with others and morality is about how we treat others. We don't think "oh I will be good because it will enhance my survival". We think "I will do good for the sake of doing good", "I will do the right thing because its the right thing to do".

Not really. I would say all civilization is built upon the advantage of cooperation.

The evidence shows its more than that. Mere cooperation doesn't account for how we do more than cooperate. Cooperation to survive could mean anything. Communist China has survived quite well for many years based on forced cooperation.But you wouldn't say it was the moral thing to do.

Muhammad made some bold claims too.

Yes and Muhammad was only a man and humans have a tendency to make false claims because they are fallible.

That the truth humans seek leads back to Christ. Its a challenge to us in that we seek truth and argue for truth as though there is one truth.

There's only one reality....so there's only one truth.

That's a weird claim. How does a person become an abstract concept like truth? Or justice? Or love?

Because God is the Law. He is the Good and Christ is the personification of that Good.

Jesus is more than a person, He also claims to be the "Way and Life". Jesus speaks of a Truth about living a good life but also a life to the optimum as opposed to other ways of living. So the Truth claim is a representation of a reality we are all searching for.

We all seek truth despite claims there is no truth and there are many claims about what is truth. Christ is saying I am that Truth.

That's why I think though morals and truth are abstract ideas we embody them and we become those ideas. Christ spoke about being good (just, truthful) didn't come from what was on the outside but what's in your heart.

That is why I think moral truths are like laws or facts because we live them (embody them). But if we reject Gods truth then we will take on some other truth. So in one way or another we will all adhere to some truth based on a belief and this will be lived out in reality.

 

[ottawak]

That's most people though...not just Christians.

Everyone running around calling people "islamaphobic" or "transphobic" or "insert-identity-group-phobic"....or broad brushing everyone who disagrees with them as "nazis" or "white supremacists" or whatever....

Those people are doing the same thing. They're imposing their "sense" of morality on others by lobbing moral accusations against them.

Frankly, I liked it better when the Christians did it. They may not have liked me....but they didn't actively try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them from speaking.

Evidently you don't live in the less urban regions of the Bible Belt.

 

[ottawak]

Sorry I missed this post. Didn't Christ say
“I am the way and the truth and the life".

The question is, why should we depend on you to tell us what that truth is?

 

[ottawak]

That's most people though...not just Christians.

Everyone running around calling people "islamaphobic" or "transphobic" or "insert-identity-group-phobic"....or broad brushing everyone who disagrees with them as "nazis" or "white supremacists" or whatever....

Those people are doing the same thing. They're imposing their "sense" of morality on others by lobbing moral accusations against them.

No, that's not what I meant by "imposing."

Frankly, I liked it better when the Christians did it. They may not have liked me....but they didn't actively try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them from speaking.

And "The Left" doesn't seem to have done a very good job of shutting you down, either. But as far as you have told us, it doesn't appear that they have actually imposed anything on you.

 

[Estrid]

No, that's not what I meant by "imposing."

And "The Left" doesn't seem to have done a very good job of shutting you down, either. But as far as you have told us, it doesn't appear that they have actually imposed anything on you.

Seems like both worse than the other

 

[Ana the Ist]

Evidently you don't live in the less urban regions of the Bible Belt.

Nope.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, that's not what I meant by "imposing."

What did you mean by imposing then?

And "The Left" doesn't seem to have done a very good job of shutting you down, either. But as far as you have told us, it doesn't appear that they have actually imposed anything on you.

1. That's a terrible argument. This is a Christian discussion forum....not an Antifa message board

2. Would you like some examples?

3. Again, what do you mean by imposing?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evidently you don't live in the less urban regions of the Bible Belt.

I did live there for most of my life. And liberalism had them kissing up to political correctness just like everyone else. Those who call sin by name are few and far between, most of those in the Bible belt much preferring to be "nice" and to "just get along with everyone else".

Seems to me that isn't good enough for the liberals, though. One must take up the call of liberalism, or that one is also "extreme right wing fundamentalist domestic terrorist" like everyone else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really. Jesus claimed He was the "Truth" above all other claimed truths.

Truth doesn't have any hierarchy. It's indifferent to values.

Today's idea of truth in a postmodern society in a subjective/relative one.

That's not really truth, and even postmodernists don't believe that

True but that's not the point. Most religions claim there are many gods and from this many truths. The Christian faith claims there is only one truth. Its a claim statement from a person who lived around 2,000 years ago.

Right, a truth claim.

Its either true or its a lie. Seeming this claim comes from the same faith that states "thou shall not lie" its a pretty significant claim compared to all other faiths. Its a pretty significant claim period.

Do those other religions claim to be tolerant of lies?

All morals begin with a belief and built upon so its beyond rationality. But in a way its not irrational because we can look throughout history at patterns of behavior to see how these moral truths have been extracted from thousands of years of abstracting them and extracting what works and provides stability in a chaotic world. In that sense they are rational and every bit facts as physical laws.

No...they aren't facts. One cannot violate the law of gravity. One can violate any number of moral prescriptions.

Of course we are moral beings by the fact that we have to live with others and morality is about how we treat others. We don't think "oh I will be good because it will enhance my survival". We think "I will do good for the sake of doing good", "I will do the right thing because its the right thing to do".

I don't see a lot of people dropping over from the exhaustion of "doing good".

The evidence shows its more than that. Mere cooperation doesn't account for how we do more than cooperate. Cooperation to survive could mean anything. Communist China has survived quite well for many years based on forced cooperation.But you wouldn't say it was the moral thing to do.

I don't see what this has to do with my statement.

Because God is the Law. He is the Good and Christ is the personification of that Good.

Jesus is more than a person, He also claims to be the "Way and Life". Jesus speaks of a Truth about living a good life but also a life to the optimum as opposed to other ways of living. So the Truth claim is a representation of a reality we are all searching for.

We all seek truth despite claims there is no truth and there are many claims about what is truth. Christ is saying I am that Truth.

That's why I think though morals and truth are abstract ideas we embody them and we become those ideas. Christ spoke about being good (just, truthful) didn't come from what was on the outside but what's in your heart.

That is why I think moral truths are like laws or facts because we live them (embody them). But if we reject Gods truth then we will take on some other truth. So in one way or another we will all adhere to some truth based on a belief and this will be lived out in reality.

God is truth, law, justice, good....and probably something else abstract and nebulous.

Sorry, but claiming to be truth is like claiming to be beauty. It's just not worth engaging with...it's not just a claim, it's an empty one.

 

[stevevw]

The question is, why should we depend on you to tell us what that truth is?

For Christians its not them telling you what the Truth is. Its them pointing to Christ words and teachings that tell people what the Truth is. In other words they are acknowledging that they don't know the truth and are incapable of finding it without Christ.

So then it goes back to Christ Himself, His words and Teachings and whether they are what Christ claims them to be.

 

[ottawak]

For Christians its not them telling you what the Truth is. Its them pointing to Christ words and teachings that tell people what the Truth is. In other words they are acknowledging that they don't know the truth and are incapable of finding it without Christ.

So then it goes back to Christ Himself, His words and Teachings and whether they are what Christ claims them to be.

Given the number of variant claims about what Christ said, it doesn't sound like a very reliable method.

 

[stevevw]

Truth doesn't have any hierarchy. It's indifferent to values.

the problem is it seems there are more than one way to determine what is truth. For example there are scientific facts/truths (inductive truths). Well that's what many claim that methodological naturalism is not only describing reality but telling us what it is as well, that reality is only physical. Then there is a narrative truths, postmodernists use this one to claim this the only truth. Then there's epistemic truths which about how we come to know what is true or real, experiential truth and deductive truths.

And that's not counting self-evident and justified belief about what is true. I think we draw on all these ways of knowing what is real and true and restricting this down to only measure being only physical cannot be a true (pardon the pun) representation of reality.

That's not really truth, and even postmodernists don't believe that

Actually I think postmodernism does emphasize the subjective/relative because its centered around the person and group and how they see the world. Any truth or fact is seen as just one way of seeing the world because there are multiple interpretation which are all equal. In fact some postmodernist claim the science method is oppressive because it pushes one way of knowing and oppresses other ways of knowing reality. Because there are multiple ways of knowing this makes the subject or collect central to how we see the world.

Right, a truth claim.

Not just a truth claim but a claim that its the only truth. [/quote] Not just a truth claim but a claim that its the only truth and all other truths are wrong.

Do those other religions claim to be tolerant of lies?

That's not the point. Other religions can be intolerant of lies but the Christian belief says that its the only truth, the only God. Other religions don't claim that and therefore open the door for other possible gods and truths which defeats the purpose of the Truth being "one determination and not many".

No...they aren't facts. One cannot violate the law of gravity. One can violate any number of moral prescriptions.

One can breach the law of gravity by jumping off a building and will suffer the consequence. Just like one can breach the law of murder and suffer the consequence. Its just another kind of fact or law that is part of reality.

I don't see a lot of people dropping over from the exhaustion of "doing good".

I don't get what you mean. We know the difference between right and wrong, we have a conscience and free will. That's the difference between us and animals and robots. That's unless you take the mechanistic view and we are just mechanism and process that dictate what happens and who we are and we are not responsible for our actions.

I don't see what this has to do with my statement.

My point is mere cooperation doesn't explain morality so its inadequate. Therefore we need to look at other reasons and one of those is people inherently know right from wrong. Morality is about how we treat others. You cannot have a moral interaction with a rock for example. So just the fact that we have to live with others creates moral values. Social norms are a good example.

Research shows that even as babies we know right from wrong and its not just a case of being socially conditioned. There is a common set of core moral truths most nations follow and even if they don't they are enshrined in treaties and Conventions and found in constitutional and human rights laws which apply to everyone regardless of relative culture. These moral truths have been around forever and came into fruition we have learnt through experience and trial that bring stability in a chaotic world.

God is truth, law, justice, good....and probably something else abstract and nebulous.

Sorry, but claiming to be truth is like claiming to be beauty. It's just not worth engaging with...it's not just a claim, it's an empty one.

I disagree because unlike beauty which is in the eye of the beholder moral truths are real in that we embody them and live them out and have been proven to bring stability over 1,000s of years and have not changed.

Even if we take God out of the picture these truths are reflected throughout the world and in our history. They are not subjective because unlike people claiming different views of beauty subjective views about moral truth don't work. Beauty comes from the subject and right and wrong is determined by the act rather than the person. Moral or social norms are a good example in that they stand regardless of personal views.

 

[stevevw]

Given the number of variant claims about what Christ said, it doesn't sound like a very reliable method.

What do you mean by variant claims.