1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Is there Objective Morality?

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by zippy2006, Sep 3, 2021.

Is there an objective morality?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I don't think that's sufficient to explain it, though, since it doesn't take into account an individual's likes and dislikes. For example, many people love the Star Trek episode The Inner Light, but others think it's overrated and not very good at all. Can you tell one of these groups they are objectively wrong? Surely, if you could, that group would say, "Yes, you are completely correct," in just the same way they would if they had claimed that 1+1=3 and you explained their error to them.
     
  2. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Preference manipulation is a science, but there will always be outliers who have very strict standards that can't be predicted. But in my earlier post I made it clear how writing a script is a science and shooting a scene is a Science. They shouldn't be conflated. A lot of what goes into making television shows is judged only subjectively but an expert in cinematography could watch the episode that you mentioned and break down each individual shot for the objective quality. Especially if they had access to it in pre-production before all of the mistakes got hidden. You can have any opinion you want on most individual aspects of a television show but some specific aspects you can have wrong opinions.
     
  3. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    So according to this, personal taste is not a thing?

    I think oysters taste disgusting, my husband quite likes them. Please, show that one of us is objectively wrong.

    Also, a movie can have brilliant cinematography and still be considered bad. And cinematography is still subjective. Sure, having the camera lower and looking up at a subject can make them seem more imposing, but how low does it have to be to make them look maximally imposing? If I have the camera looking up at them at an angle of 30 degrees, and then move it so it is looking up at them at an angle of 40 degrees, is it more imposing or less imposing? And by how much? 10%? 20%?
     
  4. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Okay we are jumping around topics a bit and I don't think it helps your case. I'll still briefly address the oyster issue. You can subjectively dislike the taste of oysters. You can objectively describe aspects of eating them, like the texture, while still having that subjective experience. The nutritional composition of the oysters is objective regardless of your subjective experience. Personal taste exists, of course, but some opinions are subjective and others are objectively wrong. You aren't wrong to dislike the taste of oysters but you would be wrong to say that oysters have similar texture to a banana or they're a poor way of getting vitamin B12.

    Now back to film. I agree that a movie can have brilliant cinematography and still be a bad movie overall. However, a bad movie with brilliant cinematography cannot be a bad movie with bad cinematography. It isn't helpful in these considerations to consider the film as a whole, but to split it up as specifically as we can. And you're dealing with it as a hypothetical, well couldn't they have made this decision and then things would have been different and maybe better? It isn't possible to answer that because that would require different decisions being made for lighting and sound placement and all of that could mean the delay of a shoot until the next day or even later depending on weather. It isn't as simple as 2+2=4, it is more like an extremely advanced story problem that requires understanding every form of mathematics on some level.

    Honestly, I'm grateful that you brought up the oysters because I think it makes my point much simpler to explain. Film is a bit esoteric after all and food is rather less esoteric, thankfully.
     
  5. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I think you have proven that it DOES help my case.

    You can talk about the flavours of the oysters all you want, and what you say can be objectively true - that this particular taste is such and such, and so on. But it doesn't matter how much you say that stuff - it will not change the fact that I think they are disgusting.

    Likewise, you can show me a boxing movie that has brilliant cinematography, great acting, and a fantastic story, and I'm still not likely to enjoy it, because I really just don't like sports movies. You can say the cinematography is good, and I'll happily agree with you. But my personal subjective viewpoint is that the movie just doesn't interest me, and there's no objective fact that can change that.

    So when you claim that God can take some subjective opinion and transform it into an objective fact, I gotta say, no, he can't.
     
  6. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Straw woman. I never brought God into this, we started talking about Star Trek being better than Star Wars. I'll address the rest of your post but I need this to be clear.
     
  7. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    You thinking they are disgusting is subjective. All opinions on the enjoyment of food taste are subjective. That's your opinion. If you said oysters taste better than bananas then I can't say that you're wrong, I can only say that I disagree. If you said that oysters taste like bananas, then I could say that you're wrong. Because that isn't something you can only have an opinion on because it crosses into the realm of objectivity.

    I don't really like sports movies either. I watched Rocky and thought it was okay but then I found out that Sylvester Stallone wrote the film and wouldn't sell the script until a studio agreed that he could play the lead role. It didn't change the movie itself, just my opinion of it. I don't have some objective way to describe how it influenced my subjective opinion of the film in a positive way.

    The problem here is that you're conflating things that are subjective by definition with things that at least have objective qualities in certain situations. You need to be more specific.
     
  8. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Sorry, I misremembered. I thought you'd said God could transform a subjective opinion into objective fact. In any case, you are correct here.

    Let's be clear here. When I am talking about subjective opinions, I'm not talking about the things like "oysters taste like bananas." I agree, that is demonstrably wrong, and it is not a subjective opinion. The closest you could come would be if someone lacked certain taste buds and so the signals that reached their brains when they ate oysters were the same ones they got when they ate bananas. There could be some argument to be made there, but since we both get what I'm saying, we can both agree that such a specialized case isn't really on topic for this thread anyway. So let's not go there.

    However, I have not seen any evidence that my subjective opinion "Oysters are disgusting" can be turned into an objective fact, despite the fact that you said it was possible.
     
  9. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I never said it was possible. My entire argument since entering this discussion has been about how we don't see the the reality of the binary outside the very few things that are purely objective. Some things are clearly subjective and some things are somewhat subjective with elements of objectivity. That's how you can make an argument about Star Trek vs Star Wars in terms of quality outside of just baseless opinions. But we can switch to the food argument again because that's easier. If you said oysters are gross, I prefer bananas, that's an opinion and I can't say it is wrong. If you said that oysters are healthier than bananas I could say it is wrong and I would have facts to back that up. Then you could use facts to back up your opinion. There is a clear difference there where it isn't subjective, it has elements of objectivity. Can you agree with everything I've said there?
     
  10. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Okay, let's stick with the food argument. I've used the Star Trek one a lot, and it's getting rather tired. Plus, I'm getting hungry.

    I agree with you when you say, "If you said oysters are gross, I prefer bananas, that's an opinion and I can't say it is wrong." My claim that oysters are gross is true only for me. I know it's not true for everyone, because my husband likes them. Also, there are no facts that I can point to in order to support my claim. I can't say they are gross because of the texture, since it's perfectly possible for a person to enjoy the texture.

    I also agree with you when you say, "If you said that oysters are healthier than bananas I could say it is wrong and I would have facts to back that up. Then you could use facts to back up your opinion." Although I'd use "statement" as the last word, not opinion. But, suffice it to say, any statement that is based on a fact would generally be considered to be an objective statement. It's objectively true that chocolate contains the seeds of the cacao tree that have been specially prepared. That's an objective statement and has facts to back it up. It is NOT an objective fact that chocolate tastes good, even though the majority of people would agree. There are no facts to back up that claim in any testable way.

    But if there is any part of a statement that is NOT based on some testable fact, we can't say that the statement is objective.

    But my issue in this thread was regarding @ReverendRV's post 2815, in which he said, "If you were God, you would Objectify that Star Trek is superior." I don't see how God could make such a subjective opinion into an objective fact. And it was your response to my response that got us to where we are now.
     
  11. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Member

    221
    +64
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    First off, I want to thank you for making such good faith arguments. I mean that very sincerely, I think it is a rare and admirable quality in debates, especially online.

    I have to admit that it was a bit silly of me to jump into a debate in the middle without bothering to look at the context. I can easily see how you would think I was trying to lead you to something, and I was confused by how much resistance it seemed I was getting just to make a simple point. I appreciate how respectful you have been and I'm glad to be able to see things from your perspective.

    I don't want to insult ReverendRV by misrepresenting or misunderstanding his argument so I might just take some time and review how we all got here. I don't want to come across as running away though, so I'll make a statement of my belief and give you the opportunity to attack it if you wish.

    I believe that God's truth is the basis for reality which is how we can use sweeping tools like philosophy and precise tools like metaphysics to identify and explain everything within our experience.
     
  12. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Thankls. :)

    I'm curious in what way you think metaphysics is a precision tool. If you'd rather not reply in the thread due to it being off topic, I'd be happy to join you if you start a thread about it, or even just send me a PM.
     
  13. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +590
    Christian
    Private
    Actually science doesn't claim anything is true, but rather the best idea that fits the observations. The problem is all the ideas that try to explain the universe, its beginning and beyond appeal to ideas that step beyond and into dimensions that well seem like science fiction and can never be verified.

    Some of these ideas are M Theory, Multiverse theory, The Hologram Principle which stems from String theory, quantum field theory, Simulation theory, Panpsychism, QBism and the Mental universe to name a few.

    First the Bible is also an historical book on its own about our history without the supernatural claims. It describes the archeology finds, including the places, people and artifacts of that time. It often reveals new knowledge and insight into our past and substantiates the Bible.

    But even if we excluded the bible then we would have all these archeological finds and historical texts from other sources outside the bible talking about the same things in the bible except there would be no bible. But when we bring these two together we find each lends weight to their authenticity.

    I think that perception is about our senses. We can be deceived by out sense. For example a stick half in the water looks bent. Light can affect the illumination of objects and people will see things different depending on their vantage point. In fact there are many factors that can cause our perception to trick us. So what we perceive is not an objective fact.

    Whereas conscious experience is a different kettle of fish to any mechanical or material thing. Its qualia which is a different phenomena to the material view. Its hard to explain but it transcends the material world so we cannot even measure it with science. Its the sensation (how do you measure sensation) of pain, or eating ice-cream or being taken away in awe at the night sky on a clear night.

    The point I am making is which is more real, the objective world or our conscious experience.

    Though magenta is made up by the brain it is a real colour at least in nature. But that is different to our experience of colours. We experience colours and the world regardless of how it came to be or is measured.

    A good example is how a colour blind person can learn everything there is to know about the mechanical processes of eyes, light and the brain they still wouldn't know what having an experience is with colours. If they suddenly were able to see colours again then we could say there experience of red is something new they have come to know about reality.

    I am not taking anything to extreme or trying to ridicule. When I say the only thing we can rely on is our conscious experience I mean its the first filter we have for everything even the physical world.

    To to say that conscious experience is subjective is to then bring into question everything about what we think reality is even the physical world and how we measures it. This has been postulated by many theoretical physicists and philosophers that reality may not be what we think it is.

    I understand your point that conscious experience is subjective. But I am trying to explain that making consciousness subjective or objective is the wrong way to even measure it. I don't think we can measure it. Certainly science cannot even understand what it is to even get to measure it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2022
  14. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +590
    Christian
    Private
    Ok so a good example is consciousness beyond the brain and spirituality. Empirical science or methodological naturalism does tell us something about reality. It says its based on matter. So anything beyond the physical world cannot be verified so is therefore not an influence on reality. It comes down to materialism verses non-materialism.

    It has to because otherwise if it didn't assume that reality is matter then it would have to allow for other influences and phenomena as possible influence on reality.

    OK sorry about that. I think there was a communication breakdown. Your meaning something different to what I am receiving.

    But as far as I understand by using the word 'proof' implies a particular measuring system that uses proof or evidence to determine well what is fact and real. That can only be methodological naturalism.

    Ok your talking about that still. Ok your refuting that the criterion is set higher for Jesus then other historical figures. I am not sure I could do it justice without going into a detailed reply which would derail this thread. So I will concede that point so as to move on.

    But I don't want to spend a lot of time on proving the Bible and Jesus. The point was that testimony and narratives or stories about our history are another important way to understand reality and its all non-material. That understanding reality as only material existence denies a large part of our history and the world or reality.

    IMO I think most people understand the Jesus story. They just attribute the more extraordinary claims as a product of delusion or an untruth or a myth that created the legend.

    But I think whether Jesus made the claim or the people who worshiped Him made up the claims the point is they were made. We all know the claims, like miracles, being the Son of God, rising from the dead ect.
    So we are faced with a choice about whether we can believe that it mostly did happen that way or that many people were deluded.

    But this is an example of the part of our lives that does have truth and is real and is beyond being measured with empirical science and yet its important to seek that truth as it can make a real difference.
     
  15. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,572
    Atheist
    Private
    Consciousness is the ability to realize and respond to your surroundings; that requires the brain. As far as spirituality, there is no evidence such a thing exists.
    Nothing beyond materialism has been found to have an actual existence.
    It does allow for other influences and phenomena. It’s just that there has to be evidence for such things and thus far there has never been any evidence for such things so claims of it are dismissed. You can’t just make a bunch of empty claims and expect to be taken seriously ya know!
    never suggested everything under the umbrella of “reality” can only verified by science. There are lots of things we can verify via our 5 senses; we don’t need science for everything.
    Do you know of any other method we can use to verify that which is real?

    Will respond to the rest later
     
  16. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,528
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    There are no scientific theories that we know can never be verified. There are some scientific theories that we currently don't know how to verify them. You're making an argument from ignorance.
     
  17. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,572
    Atheist
    Private
    As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the claims of other historical figures are typical of all human beings; those of Jesus are extraordinary.
    Even in court, testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence. In the secular world, 100% of narratives and stories about people conducting acts outside the laws of nature are considered myths and legend.
    Give an example of a substantiated claim concerning acts outside the material world.
    Most Christians I know are unaware that Jesus is known in Islam also and that Jesus story is different than theirs.
    I believe people were either deluded or lied.
     
  18. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +590
    Christian
    Private
    So where in the brain can we measure consciousness.
    You have just disregarded the majority of the worlds population who disagree and say spirituality is real including ancient peoples who have survived quiet well.

    Spirituality is a fact because we can experience something bigger than ourselves. Transcendence or spirituality is recognized in human development of higher needs such as with Maslows hierarchy of human needs. You cannot equate spirituality, consciousness and transcendence with scientific analyses because its not a mechanical or material thing and yet is real.

    Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all.
    What Is Spirituality? | Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing

    The hierarchy of needs is a psychological idea and also an assessment tool, particularly in education, healthcare and social work.[7] The hierarchy remains a popular framework in sociology research, including management training[8] and higher education.[9]

    The hierarchy of needs is used to study how humans intrinsically partake in behavioral motivation. Maslow used the terms "physiological", "safety", "belonging and love", "social needs" or "esteem", "self-actualization" and "transcendence" to describe the pattern through which human needs and motivations generally move.
    Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

    So your saying according to the science method nothing immaterial has been found to have an actual existence. But if science can only test for materialism how can it ever find immaterial stuff.

    But I disagree that nothing immaterial has been found to explain reality. For example the universe has been explained by mathematicians and theoretical physicists as being made of Math and information. One that is Mental, being made up of mind. These don't have a material basis but rather use abstract ideas and yet are theories being proposed to help explain reality and often fit observations better that other ideas.

    How can the science method allow for the immaterial when you just said it doesn't meet the evidence according to the science method. That's circular reasoning. Its setting the rules for how to measure reality and therefore what can only be found. So even if there was something immaterial methodological naturalism going to try and pin a material explanation on it.

    In other word to verify the immaterial we have to use a measuring method that can only measure the material. Immaterial stuff is ruled out before we even start to work it out.

    No one is making stuff up. Ideas like consciousness and the Mental universe are being proposed as possible alternatives for how we can understand reality with arguments. Its just that the science method cannot measure these ideas and never will so we have to broaden our thinking about what constitutes reality.

    What do you mean, can you elaborate for me please.

    Well that's what I was sort of asking you as you just said above that there is stuff under the umbrella of “reality” that can be versified in other ways besides the science method. You mentioned we can verify these things by our 5 senses and we don't need science for everything.

    So if these other 'things' or ideas, influences, effects can be measured by other ways besides science that what is it. I suggest conscious experience is one as perhaps its the only thing we can really say is real because everything we do is based on how we experience the world.

    No worries Ken. Thanks for your input.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  19. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,572
    Atheist
    Private
    Consciousness refers to an ability one has, it isn’t something that can be measured; like material.
    Just because they were wrong concerning this issue doesn’t mean they will not be able to survive
    The ability to experience something bigger than yourself does not equate to spirituality
    Spirituality is based on your thoughts, it's all in your head; sorta like Santa Clause
    I've said nothing about science or a scientific method, I’m saying according to human experience, nothing immaterial has been found to exist outside of some wild imagination
    Provide a mathematician that makes this claim
    Thoughts and imagination can help explain reality, but they are not real themselves.
    I said nothing about “scientific method” that’s something you keep bringing into the conversation for some reason. What I said is there has never been any evidence for the claims of immaterial. Now if somebody were to make such a claim and provide evidence of it’s existence, science would be all over it

    I’ll respond to the rest later
     
  20. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,572
    Atheist
    Private
    I habe no idea what you mean by “Mental Universe” but consciousness is to be aware, and able to react to your surroundings. This has always been used to understand reality
    Well that's what I was sort of asking you as you just said above that there is stuff under the umbrella of “reality” that can be versified in other ways besides the science method. You mentioned we can verify these things by our 5 senses and we don't need science for everything.
    I’m talking about things we can’t verify by just using our 5 senses. Do you know of any other way outside the scientific method to verify these things?
     
Loading...