Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

The facts you present in an argument which are supported by your sources though facts/truths are different to what I am talking about. I am talking about the unspoken moral truths we all use when we interact and experience life. Like honesty for example when 2 people engage in a debate. There is no reference to written support for these yet they stand as an objective truth just the same.

You expect me to be honest when I reply and not misrepresent you. I expect the same. That is why we clarify our positions so that they are clear and not misrepresented. That is why you question what I am saying or tell me that I am wrong or misrepresenting what you are saying.

So you are expecting the debate to be honest and you cannot deny the existence of honesty as an agreed value in our debate whether you realize it or not. Debates or engagement with people about particular topics is about trying to find the truth of the matter. So honesty is an integral part of any human engagement.

You can of course deny that honesty is a moral truth in our debate. But the moment you do that the debate and any human engagement breaks down and becomes incoherent.

We then can then both refer back to our debate and see clearly how honesty was integral and how denying it caused the breakdown. That becomes the evidence for it being an objective moral truth. There are many moral truths that work this way. Most are implicit and you just have to stop and think about it to reveal them. This generally comes under the idea or moral realism.

Honesty might be objective, but it is not always morally good; sometimes honesty can be bad. If being honest with a criminal gets an innocent person killed, in that case I would view honesty the wrong thing to do. This makes honesty a subjective moral issue.

 

[Kylie]

It's not our limited lifespan but rather our limited knowledge and understanding. If God is immortal and lives in a realm that has no death and God is all knowing and the creator of this worldly realm we live in then He must be on another level that we cannot apply our understanding of morality too. He is not a subject like us but the creator of the subject. He does not have a moral opinion because he is morality that we are trying to understanding and find truth with.

Again, why does God's immortality have any bearing on his morality?

This is a separate argument for moral objectivity. The objective moral argument is that just like science where we can find objective truths regardless of peoples personal opinions of them we can find moral objective truths regardless of peoples opinion.

This doesn't explain why we should conclude there is a "law giver" when we have a law of nature. I suspect that it's because we assume that a law of nature is like a law of government, however, that is not a justifiable comparison.

For example you implicitly expect people to be honest in debates and not misrepresent your arguments just like the ones you are putting forward. So we could say that honesty in debates is a necessary requirement just like any point on the circumference of a circle is the same distance from the centre of that circle.

Someone may argue that it is not the same distance but in attempting to measure it finds the fact it is. Just like someone may argue that honesty is not needed to have a coherent debate and then finds when honesty is taken out of the equation things become incoherent.

Are you suggesting that I am bering dishonest in this discussion?

The idea that if there are objective moral values then there must be a moral lawgiver is a separate but also supportive one to proving there is objective morality. But one not needed to prove objective morality.

But one could say that just like there needs to be a moral lawgiver because morals are objective (outside the subject humans). A similar logic can be used for mathematical facts. Having mathematical equations being so perfectly aligned in equations including in the universe would imply there is intelligence behind the universe and world.

Since I believe morality to be subjective that there needs to be someone who sets what we consider to be morally good and bad. And this is quite unlike the need for a lawgiver for the laws of nature such as gravity, since those laws are inherent properties of the universe, not decfrees handed down by some higher-ranked entity.

However, I don't see why we should conclude there is some external moral lawgiver just because most people have a great deal of agreement of what is morally good and what is morally bad. I think that it's perfectly plausible that we create our own morality, and the similarities between my moralityy and my neighboiurs stem from the fact that we both live in the same society. Morality is a social construct.

If you really understand them they are pretty powerful as with the above logic.

I don't see how.

As mentioned there are certain moral values that stand independent of personal opinion.

You haven';t shown this to be the case.

A person may have their own opinion but it can be proven they are morally wrong.

No it can't. I suspect that you will try to show an example using an extreme case, such as rape or murder. However, if you can show that morality is objective, then it should work for ANY case, not just the extreme ones. So, can you show me, objectively, that it is right or wrong to smack a disobedient child?

Honesty as a moral value in debates is one example. There are moral values in lived experience we cannot deny. Despite people claiming their personal view and that there are no objective morals they cannot help but acknowledge the moral truth in lived experience.

Of course, lived experience is a completely subjective thing, so I don't see how you can use that to support your claim that there is any objective morality.

 

[J_B_]

Is there objective morality? No. I don't think that's even a useful question. The more appropriate question would be something like, "Is there a most beneficial morality?" There, I think the answer is yes.

 

[Whyayeman]

Ah, it is getting interesting again!

First objective morality is not necessarily universal as in a fixed standard regardless of circumstances. Second when you say universal what do you mean. If its universal as far as we humans understand from our worldview then that is the known universe. But God or other gos you would expect are of a realm beyond our universe and thus not subject to it but above or beyond it.

I do not mean the 'known universe'. There is no 'beyond our universe'; thus whatever 'God' is is part of the universe, not outside it.

If morality is not universal then it must be relative. We could possibly refer to 'earthy morality' or 'the morality of the solar system'. To do that we would be acknowledging that different standards were in existence in different places.

For the Christian God he is not subject to the moral laws because he is the morals that make up the laws. You have to think about the importance of this distinction. God doesn't command morality like love, kindness, honesty, generosity, faithfulness etc. He is by nature kindness, honesty, generosity, faithfulness etc.

I have suggested that this assertion is contentious (among theologians as well as more broadly). The other side of the dispute is that God is subject to the moral law. However, as I have already said, I don't think it is pertinent to the question. Your remarks about the nature of god cannot make sense to me as facts, though I accept that Christians (and others) believe them. They are human qualities we share in some degree, but they only exist at that level.

 

[stevevw]

Honesty might be objective, but it is not always morally good; sometimes honesty can be bad. If being honest with a criminal gets an innocent person killed, in that case I would view honesty the wrong thing to do. This makes honesty a subjective moral issue.

It doesnt make honesty as a value truth subjective because you misunderstand what objective morality is. What you are talking about is moral universalism. This is when people make moral values like Honesty unbreakable no matter what. But that is different to objective morality.

I will use an example from a source that has helped me in understanding the difference.

If we use killing as the moral example as this seems to be the favourite one to use. So just because someone is a moral realest (makes morals objectively real) doesn’t mean they will always think it’s wrong to kill (or wrong to not be honest). Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist in interpreting moral action.

So it may be objectively right to kill a person (if need be) holding a gun to an innocent childs head. But in another circumstance it is objectivly morally wrong for a person who kills a child for fun.

So in each circumstance there is an objectively right moral position to take and no other position is permissable. But this is not subjective morality because it doesnt allow for an alternative position to be taken according to a persons personal view.

The example of math is used as an example where math deals with facts. For example 1 + 1 = 2 which is a fact. But in more complex equations (circumstances) such as the following

So just like in mathematics each part of the equation determines the right solution, so it is with objective moral values where circumstances determine the right action. But the arrived solution is an objective fact in each case.

 

[J_B_]

The example of math is used as an example where math deals with facts. For example 1 + 1 = 2 which is a fact. But in more complex equations (circumstances) such as the following ....

I didn't chase your link to see if there is more, but the equation shown is a better example than you probably realize. It's an indeterminate case, which means there is insufficient information to get a definitive answer. That is all too true of morality as well when speaking of finite humanity.

People who use "1+1=2 is fact" often don't seem to understand the nature of mathematics very well. Such a claim is a conflation of a defined man-made structure with simple physical experiences you assume no one will disagree with.

In number theory, it is not taken for granted that 1+1=2, but proven from definitions and assumptions that took centuries to develop.

 

[Ken-1122]

So it may be objectively right to kill a person (if need be) holding a gun to an innocent childs head. But in another circumstance it is objectivly morally wrong for a person who kills a child for fun.

So in each circumstance there is an objectively right moral position to take and no other position is permissable. But this is not subjective morality because it doesnt allow for an alternative position to be taken according to a persons personal view.

I disagree! (to use my previous analogy) If we can agree lying to a criminal to save an innocent life is the right thing to do, how about if instead of lying to a criminal, I lie to a cop about a person who may not be innocent? How about if I determine the cop to be crooked? Is it okay to lie to the cop then? How about if the cop is not crooked, but he is enforcing a law I have determined is criminal thus I’ve determined the cop to be criminal? Is it okay to lie to the cop then? And we haven’t even gotten into the person I’m protecting yet; how do I know he is innocent if he hasn’t had a trial?
In each of these cases an alternative position is taken due to my personal view.

PS
Though I didn’t look at the entire video, the little bid I did look at; I noticed he made the claim that killing the mentally handicap is morally wrong regardless of what anybody says. He didn’t prove it to be wrong, he just said it is wrong. If it were objective morally wrong to kill the mentally handicap, he should be able to demonstrate why it is morally wrong; otherwise he is just stating his subjective moral opinion on the issue.

 

[Kyrani]

Sounds a bit like contentment analysis. What did you conclude from your observations about the cellular activity?

Several things.
Firstly when the cancers moved to spontaneous remission, it was the cancer cells themselves that were doing one of two things. Some cells were breaking up and other cells, which I believe were macrophages, engulfed the debris. They were not attacked and destroyed by inflammation, i.e., by the immune system.

Secondly some cells changed and ended up looking indistinguishable from the normal cells in the area. What appeared to be happening is that some of the cells self destructed and other reverted back or at least changed to look the same as normal cells. I am not good enough to see fine details. For instance I can see large proteins, but they are blurry. However I could see a lot of similarities.

Another thing that I was fortunate to see was part of metastasis. Various cells moved out through a membrane. They seem to melt through it. And they travelled through a blood vessel. I did lose them after a time but what I did see was that there seemed to be a few cells in front and the cells behind them kept moving towards them. I found in the medical literature that there is a process called chemotaxis. From what I read this may have been what I was observing. The cells in front might have been immune system cells and/ or fibroblasts. They must have given off some chemical that the other cells detected. In detecting the chemical they move towards the stronger concentration so they were able to follow the cells in front. It is hard to see well because there were a lot of other cells around, especially red blood cells. But as it appeared the cancer cells, which must have been cancer stem cells were being led, assisted to reach the destination.

All of the cells that either destructed or changed were in my large intestine. The ones that I saw move into the blood stream were from the ovary.

I had been first diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with metastasis to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. The doctors at that time said "nothing we can do for you". But within six months I had further tests as I was feeling well and the tests came back with no evidence of disease. At that time I had not made any observations. The ones I made were subsequent cancers. Some years later there was a recurrence of the ovarian cancer and it went to the bowel. I was also able to see why I had reacted as to form these cancers the second time and there were similarities with the first instance. If you are interested I can explain what happened.

 

[Kyrani]

Will everybody be puppets in Heaven? If so, perhaps being a puppet isn’t so bad.

If this never happens in Heaven, it doesn’t have to happen here on Earth.

First I don't believe that everyone goes to Heaven. Heaven is only for those who have been granted eternal life, i.e., immortality.
Second I don't believe that the immortal souls are puppets. They have chosen to walk the Path of Righteousness because that is what they wanted to do, what they chose to do. You can still be an atheist and go to Heaven. Those who have deadened their conscience, which means they have darkened their souls, end up in eternal oblivion, which is, IMO, hell. The remainder, who are still in the process of development, reincarnate. But even the perfected souls can reincarnate if they are going to do some special work, e.g., as a prophet or even in lesser stations.
God doesn't want puppets. That is why we have free will.

 

[J_B_]

First I don't believe that everyone goes to Heaven. Heaven is only for those who have been granted eternal life, i.e., immortality.
Second I don't believe that the immortal souls are puppets. They have chosen to walk the Path of Righteousness because that is what they wanted to do, what they chose to do. You can still be an atheist and go to Heaven. Those who have deadened their conscience, which means they have darkened their souls, end up in eternal oblivion, which is, IMO, hell. The remainder, who are still in the process of development, reincarnate. But even the perfected souls can reincarnate if they are going to do some special work, e.g., as a prophet or even in lesser stations.
God doesn't want puppets. That is why we have free will.

Atheists going to heaven, reincarnation, and you list yourself as a Muslim? Interesting.

 

[Kyrani]

So if I love the neighbors wife, it's perfectly moral to act on that?

Loving the neighbor's wife doesn't mean you lust after her. Love is a spiritual connectedness. All humane people have love, regardless of religious belief or not.

 

[Kyrani]

Atheists going to heaven, reincarnation, and you list yourself as a Muslim? Interesting.

Not the regular Muslim, an Australian garden variety.
I recall 12 other past lives so I can't very well deny reincarnation. Five or six of those reincarnation were in Ancient Egypt and for most of them I was a priest or priestess. I still end prayers with "Amoun-Ra".

 

[J_B_]

Not the regular Muslim, an Australian garden variety.
I recall 12 other past lives so I can't very well deny reincarnation. Five or six of those reincarnation were in Ancient Egypt and for most of them I was a priest or priestess. I still end prayers with "Amoun-Ra".

I see. I don't know why you bother to call that Islam. It sounds more like an amorphous patchwork of mysticism and pantheism. But, the unfortunate fact that people are the only ones who can know what label best suits them means labels often lapse into uselessness over time.

 

[Ken-1122]

Loving the neighbor's wife doesn't mean you lust after her. Love is a spiritual connectedness. All humane people have love, regardless of religious belief or not.

My point is; love is not an agreed upon human standard to proclaim behavior moral vs immoral. It may be your standard, but this is not something agreed upon by mankind.

 

[Ken-1122]

Loving the neighbor's wife doesn't mean you lust after her. Love is a spiritual connectedness. All humane people have love, regardless of religious belief or not.

My point is; love is not an agreed upon human standard to proclaim behavior moral vs immoral. It may be your standard, but this is not something agreed upon by mankind.

 

[Kyrani]

I see. I don't know why you bother to call that Islam. It sounds more like an amorphous patchwork of mysticism and pantheism. But, the unfortunate fact that people are the only ones who can know what label best suits them means labels often lapse into uselessness over time.

I don't see Islam as a label. I am Muslim because I agree with what Mohammad had said, especially in that there is no other God, but God. In other words a Oneness. And I see that there is an effort towards social justice, which I think is really true of all religions. In religious practice I feel best in practices of Islam, in the community of Muslims and in the religious rituals of Sufis.
I was baptized at 2 and half in the Greek Orthodox tradition but I rebelled and my father had to help the priest to force me under the waters of the baptism tank. lol.
My most recent past life was in India and that had been influential enough to cause me to spend the first twenty five years as a Hindu and studying yoga under the guidance of Swami Sivananda-Rita in Sydney. I then became interested in other religions after she passed away, including Shamanism. I spend about a decade with Buddhism, under various teachers from Tibetan to Zen. Finally I met an Iranian guy, who came to the Zendo for meditation. He was Muslim. He introduced me to Sufism and Islam. It felt right.
So I think our religious journey may take many paths, but basically we are moving towards Union with God, enlightenment.

 

[J_B_]

Calling yourself Muslim is a way of expressing to others who you are. If we don't agree with what it means to be Muslim, it causes confusion. As I am not Muslim, I claim no right to define Islam. However, I expect most orthodox Muslims would disagree that you are Muslim. Only the most liberal religious branches accept that you can pick and choose what you agree with.

In my conservative, confessional Christian view, you either accept Christ as God and Savior or you don't. There's no half way. Though all religions share similarities, their differences mean they are NOT the same. Being Muslim means you are not Christian, etc.

It was not a good idea to force your baptism. I'm sorry that happened to you, and I can imagine the trauma. And people do wander over the course of their lives. I hope your path leads you to God. Based on my experiences with God, you're not looking in the right place yet.

 

[Kyrani]

My point is; love is not an agreed upon human standard to proclaim behavior moral vs immoral. It may be your standard, but this is not something agreed upon by mankind.

As humane people, love is basic in our nature, our spiritual nature. I agree that humans have not investigated this enough to form some agreed upon standard, but that doesn't change much. There is recognized "standards" of sorts. We have names for them in Greek culture.
Agape is the universal love, also seen as love that is "of God".
Then there is:
filia, which is the love between friends, in English I guess we would say this is friendship.
Then there is storge, which is familial love or the love for others in one's clan.
Eros, which is romantic love, the love between lovers.

 

[Whyayeman]

Before returning to topic, I wonder if Kyrani could explain how she could see the tumours or whatever they were inside her. I feel sure my own GP would be able to benefit from her technique.

 

[Kyrani]

Calling yourself Muslim is a way of expressing to others who you are. If we don't agree with what it means to be Muslim, it causes confusion. As I am not Muslim, I claim no right to define Islam. However, I expect most orthodox Muslims would disagree that you are Muslim. Only the most liberal religious branches accept that you can pick and choose what you agree with.

In my conservative, confessional Christian view, you either accept Christ as God and Savior or you don't. There's no half way. Though all religions share similarities, their differences mean they are NOT the same. Being Muslim means you are not Christian, etc.

It was not a good idea to force your baptism. I'm sorry that happened to you, and I can imagine the trauma. And people do wander over the course of their lives. I hope your path leads you to God. Based on my experiences with God, you're not looking in the right place yet.

I don't see things as black and white. I think most people, who are theists, will accept some things and maybe reject others based on their interpretation and understanding of scripture and maybe also their level of development.

Certainly there are some Muslims that have frowned. For instance I have an image of Ganesha, the elephant god of Hinduism, who is the remover of all obstacles, on my wall. And I have images of Krishna, Ancient Egyptian symbols and a statute of Kuan-Yin, the goddess of mercy, by a window. As an activist for social justice, hammered daily by the inhumane subculture in one way or another, I figure I need all the help I can get.

However, my religious practice and understanding are essentially Muslim, so I call myself a Muslim. I don't agree with everything in the Koran as I strongly suspect that there are some things that were added in after Mohammad's death. And they may have been due to tribal customs. I believe that Ali was the rightful successor of the prophet so that makes me Shia.

I don't believe that Jesus is God nor a savior, so that means I am not a Christian. I believe that Jesus is a prophet most high. And I don't believe that simply accepting Jesus as a savior is going to help one get to Heaven. The reason is because my mother was a Christian and claimed she accepted Jesus as her savior, however that didn't stop her from being inhumane, not one little bit. And there were plenty of instances also that she recruited and used people straight out of the congregation. So the idea of universal salvation doesn't sit well with me. My father on the other hand, who was also inhumane, went to church because he said that as Greek Orthodoxy was Greek it should be revered. it had nothing to do with God. He was atheist.