• 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.

Is there an objective morality?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,057
5,307
✟326,913.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I disagree as some may think for example in science that an alternative theory explains what is happening just as well. Its just a case of different starting assumptions. BUt nevertheless it doesnt matter what the people use as their reason for thinking alternative facts.

The point is they genuinely believe that those alternative views are right. They believe there was some unjust practcies during the elections and this denied Trump. Their personal biases may influence their position but that is what subjectiveness is about. So people still have subjective views about objective reality.

Genuine belief is irrelevant. All that matters is what viewpoint the evidence supports.

No I replied with the only reasonable answer there can be. Objective morality is about there being an objectove wrong for any moral situation. So stealing chocolate is objectively wrong. Assaulting a child is objectively wrong. Simple as that.

And which is worse?

When it comes to anything that is objective, I can clearly specify the difference in degrees. I can tell you exactly what the difference is between the temperature of object A and the temperature of object B. Anyone can come and measure those two objects and reach the same conclusion. Can you do the same for two different moral acts? I'll even let you choose the two acts. We'll see if everyone can reach the same conclusion regarding how much more morally worse one is than the other.

How does saying that these two moral situations cannot be compared as to which one is worse refutes that each is objectively wrong. It still supports moral objectivity. Your acting like the evidence for objective morality hinges on this one answer. Well thats a logical fallacy.

Why do you say they cannot be compared? We are talking about the same thing in both cases - the morality of the situation. How can you claim that morality is objective while being unable to specify a way to demonstrate that clearly, such as by showing the objective difference between the morality of two situations?

What part of saying you cannot compare two different moral situations as to which one is worse don't you understand. Or are you saying because I did not answer this in the way you thought it should be answered must mean I am hiding from the truth. If so then give some arguement rather than say excuses, excuses. Otherwise thats another logical fallacy as far as I can see.[/QUOTE]

It's like saying you can't compare the temperature of a block of metal to the temperature of water because one's a solid and the other is a liquid.

You claim they have something in common - morality - yet you seem to be saying that the morality can't be compared. Why not? We are not talking about two different things here.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,057
5,307
✟326,913.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How is any of this relevant to objective morality. Listen to the logic. If I say that we shouldnt shoot down the plane then morals must be subjective. Thats just a big fallacy. If I shoot down the plane then you are contradicting your own objective morality. Thats another fallacy. So wheich logical fallacy are you going with.

Me pointing out a situation where your "objective morality" can't possibly apply is not a logical fallacy. It's me demonstrating that objective morality is impossible.

In any situation the best action is to save as many lives as possible. But thats a hard one as hindsight is 20/20 vision. You may think there are 200 people on the plane and only 50 on the floors where the plane will hit the tower. But how do you really know. But basically the aim would be to save as many people as possible as life is recognised objectively as imposrtant.

And there you go, trying to make it complicated.

You speak of objective morality, but whenever you are given the chance to put it into practice, you refuse to and make excuses.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just what I didn't want. A list of the ten commandments. Maybe someone will read that post so it won't have been a waste of your time writing it. What I did want from you is where we can find the person who has the inside knowledge of what God wants. I want to know who knows what God has decided is objectively immoral.

If you don't know then please say so. And we'll carry on making decisions on morality ourselves.
I'm sorry... did you just say something? I guess I really don't want to hear anything from you, because the first sentence there just struck me wrong, and whatever context you provided later just wasn't worth considering. Sorry...
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, that was short and unproductive. One out of two ain't bad I guess.
sorry for being snarky... I was just reflecting how your post appeared to me. We do really need to slow down and really hear what people that disagree with us are saying more often. I am trying to be willing to do that more often.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
sorry for being snarky... I was just reflecting how your post appeared to me. We do really need to slow down and really hear what people that disagree with us are saying more often. I am trying to be willing to do that more often.

Then as you claim that God is the only one who can determine objective morality, maybe you can tell me who has a direct line to this divine authority. As I said, if you don't know then we'll have to keep making our own subjective decisions on morality.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,669
1,661
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟313,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is that false in your opinion or false objectively.
Oh yes I can. At 3 am, I relive that thing from 15 years ago that I regret that nobody else even knows about. Are you trying to tell me that people don't have consciences? Nonsense!
You can subjectively think or feel you are a schmuck but how do you know your a schmuck if you don't know what a schmuck is.

Yes, that's the point! Once again you evade its import!
can you explain this.
Different people have different consciences!
I beg to differ. First its a logical fallacy to say because people think differently that there are no moral truths. Second though some people will pick up a wallet full of money doesn't mean its good to do.

Unless as you say people have not got a conscience such as a mental illness people will still act like there is something wrong with taking the wallet with money if its not theirs. They may conseal their guilt at the time but at some time they will express that they intuitively know its wrong in the way they speak or act.

I have never said such a thing. Indeed, I called Trump a schmuck. A putz, even.
Ok you called Trump a Schmuck. You are now using an objective measure to describe someone. You can't call Trump a Schmuck uless you have an idea of what it is so it meets your objection.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then as you claim that God is the only one who can determine objective morality, maybe you can tell me who has a direct line to this divine authority. As I said, if you don't know then we'll have to keep making our own subjective decisions on morality.
I really did try to answer that question in my previous post (last page, towards the bottom)... do you think you could please take about 5 minutes to read it? I don't expect you to agree entirely, or make any kind of response to my last invitation, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the dynamic between consciousness, Scripture, faith, and God that I outlined (not in so many words). Particularly, if one presupposes a Theistic universe, does my post make sense in that context?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,669
1,661
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟313,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's exactly what I'm asking you. What length of punishment would you consider to be immoral? You said 'there needs to be a right or a wrong'. Black and white. No grey areas. This is your exact claim.
No its my claim misrepresented by you. You are right that a moral "Truth" is like a law but we still need to determine what the moral truth is for each individual scenario. Each moral situation will have some circumstances that need to be reasoned differently to determine the truth or as close to the truth we can get.
So the punishment is either morally acceptable or immoral. An hour is fine. A month is not. So when does it change from one to the other?

If it's one or the other then there must be an answer.
Yes we can determine what degree of punishment is morally right or wrong. But let me point out that your logic is wrong to begin with to think that because we cannot point out what degree of wrongness there is therefore morality must be subjective and there is no moral objective. It may be that we cannot understand enough at that time to know the objective truth but further time and investigation may find it.

But certainly we can investigate to see when to draw the line with punishment. We can determine some common truths like abusing/assaulting your child is wrong. To say that we cannot determine additionally what is a fair and just time to be grounded in a room is counter intuitive.

If someone says "I think children should be locked in their room for 3 months for even small offences" would seem strange and we know that we could investigate this to see if that was "Fair" and "Just". But to think "Why bother" there is no right and wrong to find its all just opinions and feelings.

So yes there is a line we can find that turns fair and just punishment into unjustified acts against others especially children who we know are dependent on us getting this right.

We certainly know theres something wrong with assaulting, abusing or neglecting children. So thats a start. We can refine our behaviour with more understanding and then we can determine greater truths about what is the better/best way to act morally in that situation.

I have this feeling that you are going to throw some examples at me. But once again I need to point out what relevance has that got to do with showing there are no moral truths. Me not being able to give knock down answers to scenarios does prove there are no objective morals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I really did try to answer that question in my previous post... do you think you could please take about 5 minutes to read it? I don't expect you to agree entirely, or make any kind of response to my last invitation, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the dynamic between consciousness, Scripture, faith, and God that I outlined (not in so many words). Particularly, if one presupposes a Theistic universe, does my post make sense in that context?

Quoting scripture and suggesting that the bible is a good guide for living a moral life (which would be an extremely tough argument to make - you'd be better off using Jesus as an example) does nothing to differentiate between what might be objective and what might be subjective when it comes to morals. And you have specifically said that we are incapable of doing so. That only God can do that.

So let's just focus on that problem. Where do we find this direct line to God so that when a moral problem comes up we can check to see if there is an objective answer?
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But let me point out that your logic is wrong to think that because we cannot point out that degree of wrongness there is no moral objective. It may be that we cannot understand enough at that time to know the objective truth.

Your claim was that 'there needs to be a right or a wrong'. That doesn't allow for a degree of wrongness. It's either moral or immoral. But let's say that you don't know the details. You aren't sure of the outcome. That you don't understand the scenario in enough depth. But you are still saying there is no grey area. It's one or the other. As opposed to almost everyone else who would say something along the lines of: 'Well, in my opinion, one hour is OK, three hours is probably too long. Five? I personally wouldn't agree to that. But a whole day is definitely too long. And a week is positively criminal'.

So let's skip asking you for a specific time when it becomes immoral. Let's just ask if it's your position that there is some specific moment when it becomes immoral, whatever that moment would be.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then as you claim that God is the only one who can determine objective morality, maybe you can tell me who has a direct line to this divine authority. As I said, if you don't know then we'll have to keep making our own subjective decisions on morality.

I'm pretty sure I know where this is going, but for the sake of dealing with it and moving on, I'll bite.

At times, yes, I do have a direct line to God. He does speak to me, in His timing, for His purposes.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm pretty sure I know where this is going, but for the sake of dealing with it and moving on, I'll bite.

At times, yes, I do have a direct line to God. He does speak to me, in His timing, for His purposes.

Darn tootin' you know where this is going. So you are the guy who will know what is objective and what is subjective when it comes to morality. Good to know.

Now my problem is that others have told me the exact same thing. And I will guarantee that you and all of the others will not have the same views when it comes to determining the solution to moral problems. I don't know what denomination you are but I'm sure that you know that there are very many. Agreeing on some things but not on all. And many divisions within each denomination. Who disagree with each other. And many disagreements between people within those divisions (I won't even bother mentioning that there are other monotheistic religions with drastically different views on moral matters).

So...all these others who have told me the same as you just have. And who say that they have different messages from God as to what is right and wrong. Are you the only one who is right? How do I determine who really knows?

So yeah, that's where it was going.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Darn tootin' you know where this is going. So you are the guy who will know what is objective and what is subjective when it comes to morality. Good to know.

Now my problem is that others have told me the exact same thing. And I will guarantee that you and all of the others will not have the same views when it comes to determining the solution to moral problems. I don't know what denomination you are but I'm sure that you know that there are very many. Agreeing on some things but not on all. And many divisions within each denomination. Who disagree with each other. And many disagreements between people within those divisions (I won't even bother mentioning that there are other monotheistic religions with drastically different views on moral matters).

So...all these others who have told me the same as you just have. And who say that they have different messages from God as to what is right and wrong. Are you the only one who is right? How do I determine who really knows?

So yeah, that's where it was going.

That, actually, was not where I thought you were going. But it is a valid question to ask. I think, in large part, the problem is basically a human desire to be in control, and we're largely just forgetful and lazy creatures in general. The answer to your question, though, is that there are people in just about every Christian denomination that are connected to God in this way (or at least I would like to think so). But God's church has, for the most part, stopped being a living ambassador for Jesus Christ on the earth, and has become largely just another institution trying to do good in it's own way, but really lacking in connecting people to a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, by faith, and with His Spirit living in them and guiding them. All through history, Christianity has experienced times of Spiritual vitality, and periods of people trying to do what only God can do, and eventually falling into being an institution, not a living organism filled with the life of God's Spirit, dedicated to bringing people into relationship with God through the gospel. I am not familiar with every Christian denomination, of course, so I cannot speak accurately of them all. To illustrate, let me use three current church groups as examples. If you want to skip the history lesson, and just get to the meat, check out the last paragraph.

The Catholic Church has been around in it's basic form for a VERY long time. It is thanks largely to Catholic monasteries that we even have as many copies of the Scriptures as we do, and for that, faithful Christians everywhere owe them a debt of gratitude. And it was very important as an evangelizing force for Spiritual life during turbulent times, and it helped transform the Roman world. BUT... at some point, probably before the 5th century ended (if not much earlier), the church became much more a political power, building temporal authority, for selfish purposes, than it was a Spiritual organism dedicated to bringing people into relationship with God through Jesus Christ. As the church moved farther and farther down that trajectory, over the centuries, even the form of it's faith became distorted by traditions that were instituted largely for the purposes of keeping the church in power rather than really understanding God and His purposes in the world. Eventually, this led to faithful people within the church trying to reform it, with some limited success for short periods of time, but it never really stopped being a political institution with Spiritual roots more than a Spiritual institution with political goals. To it's credit, the church has gone through some needed changes over the last few centuries, but despite many faithful members in it's pews, and even in positions of authority, it still is what it is. Most protestant church history books, and even some Catholic ones will acknowledge the church lost it's way at times, will paint a similar picture, so this is not just my opinion. No offense intended towards Catholics, as I said, there are many, many faithful Christians still in this church.

I am currently attending a United Methodist Church. This church finds it's roots mainly through the ministry and teachings of John Wesley. Wesley was a minister in the Anglican Church, and he openly confesses that he really wasn't "saved" until spending many years as a minister, and even attempting an ill fated missionary journey to North America (in the decades preceding the Revolutionary war). Wesley did end up having a notable conversion experience, and after that began to really dedicate his life to seeking how to live the Christian life as God wanted. He began trying to reform the Anglican church's worldliness (kind of a theme, huh?), and began forming small groups all over England, and eventually in America as well. In many ways, he was a man who defied the conventions of his time, speaking out against the slave trade, focusing on actually living out the Christian faith in very practical ways when the church overall was more a political institution with high ideas and poor actions in general. Yet, he was still a man of his times in other ways... Rationalism dominated the philosophical atmosphere in those times, and perhaps it could be said that he gave to much thrift to rationalism, and also perhaps to church tradition (where it didn't contradict Scripture). The Methodist church went on to be a force to be reckoned with during the 1st and second Great Awakenings, but as the divisions over the charismatic movement took shape, many spirit filled believers left the denomination to join churches that were more open to Spiritual gifts. Over the decades, the church merged with other denominations, and in an attempt to be open to many different doctrinal perspectives, while staying true to the basic teachings of Wesley (do good!), the church has in many ways become an institution for doing good in the world... not a bad thing, BUT NOT a living organism that seeks to bring the world into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. No offense to my Methodist brothers and sisters, but I must ask you: in doing all the good things you are doing, are you routinely sharing the gospel with people, and are you really holding true to the idea that God is both loving AND holy? Does He care about love only, or is He in the truth business as well? Can doing kind and caring things for someone, but not sharing the gospel, save them?

My roots as a Christian are in the Calvary Chapel movement. It started in the 70's as a big part of the "Jesus Movement" on the west coast. Even though he told the movement before he died not to, the philosophy and Bible teaching of the church are basically that of it's founder, Chuck Smith. It was notable in that there were many reports of God doing miraculous things, people being physically healed, prophecies being given and fulfilled, and also the controversial gift of "tongues". Doctrinally, they described themselves as "Bapticostals", a fusion of Baptist focus on the importance of teaching and believing the Bible and the Pentecostal focus on the reality and availability of the gifts of the Spirit in believers today, and always. I haven't attended one for over a decade (largely due to wanting to attend church with my parents, and also distance to the nearest Calvary Chapel), but I was saddened to hear of it's founder's death, and also to find that shortly after his death there was a split between many of the prominent pastors in the movement. My experience, though, was largely good there. I will say this, though... the church I attended was much more Baptist than Pentecostal in practice, and even though I understand that our resources as a small congregation were limited, I wish we would have been more active in practically serving the community. But I will say this, at least when I attended it, it was laser focused on being a living organism that was dedicated to bringing the gospel to the world, teaching all of the Bible as simply and clearly as possible, and trying to bring others into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and I first learned how to connect to God's Spirit there. I'm not sure how faithful the movement as a whole is today, but God bless them for what they were when I was there!

Just in case you're still reading, and to clarify something I know you'll be asking in a future post... where in all that did I answer the question? My answer, is that no single church institution always has everything right, because humans are prone to stray from being connected to God's Spirit, and doing things in their own understanding and strength. Same can be said for individuals... I am connected, but not always. I seek God to help me understand how to navigate moral decisions, but not always, because I'm still human! I get distracted, I get busy, I lose sight of my relationship to God, and end up forgetting what I'm about. I end up making decisions, doing things, and yes, even teaching in God's name without REALLY taking myself out of the way, and letting Him speak to me. I am literally a broken piece of pottery trying to hold water, but it keeps flowing out... and unless I deliberately, steadfastly keep letting God fill me back up with water, I get dry and pretty much useless. THAT is what I believe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Just in case you're still reading, and to clarify something I know you'll be asking in a future post... where in all that did I answer the question?

Food, write less. I seriously doubt anyone is reading a few hundred words that doesn't relate to the op. I'm certainly not (but maybe you enjoy writing it). All you needed to do was answer the question. And you haven't. Or rather you have in a way. You've effectively said that there is no answer. No one person can say what is objective. That's the second time you've said that.

I think that sums up the position succinctly. But poses a follow up question. Let's skip to it. If no-one knows if morality is objective, how can anyone claim that it is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
51
Watervliet, MI
✟406,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Food, write less. I seriously doubt anyone is reading a few hundred words that doesn't relate to the op. I'm certainly not (but maybe you enjoy writing it). All you needed to do was answer the question. And you haven't. Or rather you have in a way. You've effectively said that there is no answer. No one person can say what is objective. That's the second time you've said that.

I think that sums up the position succinctly. But poses a follow up question. Let's skip to it. If no-one can tell if morality is objective, how can anyone claim that it is?

Thanks for the advice! I can get long winded, can't I?

I would qualify what you claim I am saying. No one person on earth today can say what is morally objective all the time, BUT... there is one Person who can, if you'll just seek Him out and listen to Him. Good news is, you don't have to travel to the top of a mountain in Tibet to speak to Him. Less good news is, though, you can't physically see, touch, or hear Him with your ears.. so learning to discern when He's speaking to you can be quite frustrating at times, but we CAN learn, if we really want to. He has written a very helpful book for His beloved creations, though. And yes, I would focus first on the Gospels. It's extremely helpful in getting to know who He is, and what He's all about. Just remember, the written stuff is there to point to the living Person who is it's Author, not necessarily to stand all alone on it's own. I know that's not really what you want to hear...
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟118,092.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I didn't get an answer. All I got were excuses for not answering. And I'm not 'claiming victory'. If you want to look at it like a competition of some sort then feel free.
Yes, you got an answer.

From the poster who gave us the case for the "good rape" we now get the equally bizarre case of the loving father who imprisons his 12 year old daughter to be sent to her room in the basement until she's 22 years old for cursing at her mother. "Is that objectively moral?", the poster dares to ask.

Pressed to give us more info as to the mind of the father, the poster replies, the father just wants her to be "fed and watered" for ten years and the poster rebukes further attempts to extract more info on his imagined moral dilemma with, "that's all you need to know."

Answer: No. The father who vindictively intends to cruelly punish his child and acts on that intention commits an immoral act.

"Ah ha", says the poster, "what about 9 years and 364 days? Is that objectively moral?" Answer: "Please pay attention, punishments that a reasonable person would consider cruel and unusual are objectively immoral."
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know that's not really what you want to hear...

Please stop preaching. This is not the section of the forum for that.

Again, you have not answered the question asked. From here on in I'll assume you have no answer. Thanks for your input.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,770
15,399
72
Bondi
✟361,898.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"Please pay attention, punishments that a reasonable person would consider cruel and unusual are objectively immoral."

So that's how we find out what is objectively moral. We ask for the opinion of reasonable people.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟118,092.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's exactly what I'm asking you. What length of punishment would you consider to be immoral?
That's exactly the problem with imagined abstract morality stories. Any father of a 12 year old daughter who inflicts a vindictive punishment -- 1 day or 10 years -- commits an immoral act. Didn't your daughter ever tell you, "Dad, get real". If not then she should have.
 
Upvote 0