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.
1. Yes: the most common and enduring moral rules are based on objective facts about what behaviors support or oppose natural human values.Is there an objective morality?
- Yes
- No
1. Yes: the most common and enduring moral rules are based on objective facts about what behaviors support or oppose natural human values.
Sure we do. We have ways to assign people to self-identified racial categories. And we have ways of measuring wealth or loan approvals or what have you. And it is an objective measure whether one correlates with the other to some level of statistical significance.
But we have no way of measuring wickedness or virtue.
I think you're uncharitably reading my definition of objective. Obviously murders involve people.
This get tricky because "moral" and "morality" are not really the same thing.Does the fact that a behavior supports or opposes natural human values mean that the behavior is objectively moral or immoral?
This get tricky because "moral" and "morality" are not really the same thing.
Morality is the set of rules societies agree to.
Moral is more like the feeling of judgement, the sense of this is right or this is wrong that registers emotionally.
So,
While I find the most important parts of morality to have an objective basis, the feeling of judgement that something is right or wrong is completely a subjective experience. Judging is only performed my a mind. As such its inherently an internal experience and so, not objective.
I dont see anything that makes judgements of right or wrong binding except to the extent that consequences are imposed by society, family, associates. (Possibly we are biologically hard wired to make certain inescapable judgements on ourselves, the sort of self judgements that haunt people, which they perhaps drink to hide from. Thats about as close to binding moral rules as I can see. But thats speculation on my part.)The idea of objective morality is usually associated with the "bindingness" of morality. That is, an objective morality binds whereas a non-objective morality doesn't.
So you say that morality is a set of rules, but is there a reason we are bound by those rules? Since morality always implies normative behavior the question is: how is that normative behavior grounded? What makes it normative? What makes it binding? What makes it obligatory?
I dont see anything that makes judgements of right or wrong binding except to the extent that consequences are imposed by society. (Possibly we are biologically hard wired to make certain inescapable judgements on ourselves, the sort of self judgements that haunt people, which they perhaps drink to hide from. Thats about as close to binding moral rules as I can see. But thats speculation on my part.)
I do understand that religious people often believe there is a divinity who makes moral judgements binding on people. But thats entirely a matter of faith. And faith is an internal subjective matter.
Its proposed to be objective. Its not demonstrable either way. All you can show me is that people express a belief, a position held internally in their mind. I dont count pure assertion as defining objective reality. Do you?.....It strikes me as objective in the sense that it obtains independent of subjective opinions. "There is a God who punishes and rewards." That statement is either true or false regardless of anyone's opinion. Again, it will depend on the definition of "objective" in play.
Its proposed objective. Its not demonstrable either way. All you can show me is that people express a belief, a position held internally by a mind. I dont count pure assertion as defining objective reality. Do you?
No, God did not create people like that. Such abnormalities are a consequence of the fall. The vast majority of people seeking to change gender are physically normal. Wanting to change is a symptom of mental illness, not physical abnormality.Apart from people born with hermaphroditism.
God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.Problem with that is that what God says is right or wrong depends on the time he said it.
Sometimes it’s okay to kill people, sometimes not.
No, this does not appear to be the case.Wanting to change is a symptom of mental illness, not physical abnormality.
I was talking about killing people. Sometimes God mandates killing, sometimes not.God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.
God has never OK'd homosexuality. It's outlawed in the OT under pain of death. According to Romans 1, it is the consequence of deliberate rebellion against God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuality disqualifies someone from entering the Kingdom of God. Sin is sin. However, consequences definitely vary. Telling a lie on you tax return is not good. But it is unlikely to kill you. A gay friend of mine (I did not know he was gay at the time) backslid and contracted AIDS. He died. He repented, but he did not get healed. God is not mocked. Is there a time when it is OK to cheat the taxman? I used to think it was OK, but it's not. Stealing is never right. Adultery is never right. Fornication is never right. And the same is true of homosexuality.
Morality according to the dictionary means "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour". I think that is a pretty good definition. Objective relates to facts and when it comes to morality it is facts independent of the persons (the subject) views, feelings and opinions.In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
We've reframed the question of an objective-binding morality correctly, I think: does the God of the Bible exist? If the answer is yes, then I'd agree, the sort of binding morality you assert is real.Believing that some thing exists does not thereby establish the existence of the thing, but I don't think anyone claims otherwise. The preacher on the street corner is presumably doing something more than "pure assertion."
Is it? Its seems like a very sound inference to me. If youve got a demonstration of the existence of God, I'm all ears. In fact the world is waiting.Similarly, your claim that, "It's not demonstrable either way," is a pure assertion. It is proposed as objective. It assumes a context (of Protestant fideism). We can presume that the mere assertion would yield to justification upon request. But even if I ask for justification, you provide it, and I remain unconvinced, it does not follow that the claim is unjustified, untrue, or non-objective.
There are two senses in which the term "objective" has meaning. In metaphysics the term means that reality exists independent of conscious activity such as wishing, liking, preferring, demanding, believing, faith, etc. The more important meaning of "objective" is in the epistemological sense. In that sense, objective means facts-based and discovered by an objective method of cognition.In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.
The objective portion of morality is that there is an objective and optimal way to obtain both personally and societally what we value.
The subjective portion of morality are the values themselves.
What you care about and what you want to happen ideally must be part of your morality, and if such things are different between different observers morality can not be objective.
Religious views that there can be objective value systems based upon the known wishes of Gods, have in my opinion, been very poor at being an objective measure of value.
We've reframed the question of an objective-binding morality correctly, I think: does the God of the Bible exist? If the answer is yes, then I'd agree, the sort of binding morality you assert is real.
Is it? Its seems like a very sound inference to me.
(Not sure why we're going down this route when I think we agree about your post #3 idea of an objective morality that arises from wisdom about how virtuous action advances natural human values. That morality applies whether we are beholden to divine judgement or not.)
What you care about and what you want to happen ideally must be part of your morality, and if such things are different between different observers morality can not be objective.
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?