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.
Ooh! Interesting.
I have always felt that there is an objective morality - and I am well aware of the absurdity of this. So I will read on, quietly...
My view can be summarised by this: There is no God; morality is made by humans. Yet this does not answer the original question either. Maybe it is the question that is the problem. And maybe the answer makes no practical difference, interesting as it is.
The fact that we have empathy and a conscious does not make the moral principles of right and wrong(morality) objective, the principles are still subjective and vary from person to person, even the origin of moral principles objectively exists.The experience of empathy and a conscience is subjective. But it is an objective fact that we possess empathy and a conscience.
I can stand on a street corner and proclaim myself to be the moral law giver, and all who disobey my moral laws will suffer the consequences after they die. My words will have as much merit as your words proclaiming your God saying this.If theres an objective morality, then there has to be an objective moral law giver. Just like in the secular world we have laws and everyone accepts that braking those laws has consequences then a moral law system beyond this world will work pretty much the same.
In some ways having a moral laws and a moral law giver beyond this world is understandable in that people can get away with being bad and causing injustice and suffering. So having consequence for immoral behaviour beyond the limits of this world that catches these people is true justice. It makes sense also in that we all seek a greater truth for justice beyond what this world can offer.
Then why do people of different cultures have different standards of empathetic and conscious?I disagree that empathy and conscience are subjective. They both arise out of the quality of our soul/ conscious being and not our embodiment or the physical experiences that we have through our embodiment.
Different cultures have different standards of what they perceive a right vs wrong.A conscience is the result of our spiritual connectedness. We suffer a bad conscience if we do something wrong.
This spiritual consciousness you speak of, is it in a constant state of change? Because what was considered right/wrong 100 years ago, is completely different today; and will be completely different 100 years from nowThat is not a choice or anything we can control. We certainly can take measures to correct the wrong and recover our good conscience feeling. However our conscience is a spiritual compass that helps us / guides us in making good decision and actions. If it was subjective then we wouldn't get a bad conscience if we did something wrong.
So how come there isn’t agreement with these spiritual consciousness? One person’s spiritual consciousness says it is okay to kill animals and eat their flesh while another person’s says it is wrong? Why does one person’s spiritual consciousness say interracial marriages are wrong, while the other person’s say it is okay? Why does one person’s spiritual consciousness say stealing if you are in need is okay, while someone else’s say it is wrong? How come this spiritual consciousness that you say controls our behavior seems to differ from person to person?Also empathy, I tried to explain, is a quality that is also based on our spiritual connectedness or love. It is not a simple choice of are we happy with another's good fortune or good health etc., and are we moved to help if we see the other in some sort of trouble and needing help. We react due to our spiritual connectedness.
So both empathy and conscience, our moral compass are evidence that morality is objective.
Objective morality is set out in God's word. This is anathema to the world.
God says homosexuality is wrong.
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?
You cannot have puppets and free will. If God had made man unable to sin, he would have had to make puppets. Man was not created sinful. He made exactly the wrong choice, bringing death on himself. God has made a way of escape from that. Many people are unwilling to accept God's way. That is also their choice. People are still not puppets as far as God is concerned.You would have thought an omniscient god would have avoided that state of affairs.
In your sense there is nothing that can be objective because everything has to be interpreted. I don't agree. There is enough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek to translate to English acceptably. Subjective is when people don't like a translation and want to reinterpret it to suit their own prejudices. Homosexuality is one subject that provokes this reaction. Someone is doing the same to justify being nude in public.Originally the idea was regarding infidelity.
The fact that your using a new word not found in the original writings brings in the subjective choice of the translation team to convert the language. And there is much discussion in the translation process.
So what makes you think there is an objective morality?
I’ve never understood why that follows. In Heaven can people sin? God created Adam and Eve with no knowledge of good and evil- they could not discriminate what was as good choice from one that wasn’t.You cannot have puppets and free will. If God had made man unable to sin, he would have had to make puppets.
There is indeed much discussion by translating teams for most, but not all, versions. That helps to keep translations objective. Personal bias is less likely to creep in.
In your sense there is nothing that can be objective because everything has to be interpreted. I don't agree. There is enough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek to translate to English acceptably. Subjective is when people don't like a translation and want to reinterpret it to suit their own prejudices. Homosexuality is one subject that provokes this reaction. Someone is doing the same to justify being nude in public.
There is indeed much discussion by translating teams for most, but not all, versions. That helps to keep translations objective. Personal bias is less likely to creep in.
People report the feeling. We can test for neurological correlates of those reports. We communicate easily about the feeling. And it makes sense biologically that we have the feeling as a motivator. Thats enough to be pretty confident its a feeling humans generally share.Science fails when it comes to subjective experience as in "feeling hunger" or "feeling hungry". There are no objective tests that can be done to show that "the meat robot" has any subjective experience as far as science is concerned. In science we can only observe that if someone doesn't eat, be they human or animal, then they die as a result. We see that in starvation. But we can't test for a feeling.
The commandments sound more like guidelines to me. They are too general to be taken as principles of morality.In the Bible thru His commandments.
The feeling is a cognitive assessment. Sure there are physiological conditions but they don't show that what one person's perception of hunger or sad or happy or any other subjective experience is the same or can even be assessed at all. We can't say any of the feelings are shared because we can't know what another person is feeling, we can only make physiological measurements and they are not feelings.People report the feeling. We can test for neurological correlates of those reports. We communicate easily about the feeling. And it makes sense biologically that we have the feeling as a motivator. Thats enough to be pretty confident its a feeling humans generally share.
The commandments sound more like guidelines to me. They are too general to be taken as principles of morality.
For instance "Thou shalt not kill". There are instances where one has to kill to defend one's life or loved one or country etc.
And the same goes for not bearing false witness or lying in other words. I had a situation once where I was in a supermarket and a little boy came nearby, obviously strayed from his mom or dad. Very soon a suspicious looking man approached and started to try and get the little boy to respond to him. I moved closer and said "what do you want with my kid". He looked surprised and then ran away. I didn't know the little boy. So strictly speaking I lied. But it saved the boy. And I even had to attract the attention of one of the shop assistants to help get the boy back to his mother or father because I saw the man again in the distance. Once he saw me talking to staff he was out of the shop and gone. So I acted ethically in lying because it saved the boy.
The commandments sound more like guidelines to me. They are too general to be taken as principles of morality.
For instance "Thou shalt not kill". There are instances where one has to kill to defend one's life or loved one or country etc.
And the same goes for not bearing false witness or lying in other words. I had a situation once where I was in a supermarket and a little boy came nearby, obviously strayed from his mom or dad. Very soon a suspicious looking man approached and started to try and get the little boy to respond to him. I moved closer and said "what do you want with my kid". He looked surprised and then ran away. I didn't know the little boy. So strictly speaking I lied. But it saved the boy. And I even had to attract the attention of one of the shop assistants to help get the boy back to his mother or father because I saw the man again in the distance. Once he saw me talking to staff he was out of the shop and gone. So I acted ethically in lying because it saved the boy.
Not unable to sin, without the desire to sin..... you know; sorta like Jesus.You cannot have puppets and free will. If God had made man unable to sin, he would have had to make puppets.
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?