My Dialogue on True Morality

[dóxatotheó]

Morality is a presumptuous word for me to even bring up, because Atheist, Skeptics, and Gnostics use against all forms of classical theism. High bounds of ignorance creates high grounds of supposed "subjective" morality but in reality many hard grounds of moral issues concerning human species is already consonant to nature of a human the greater grounds of moral issues would kill a person in there grounds of the human mind. Our mind would preconceive things through our consciousnesses that is against what you can see as morally right or wrong its up to what you conceive in your mind. Us as humans and our constant accept-ion of immoral actions and constant polemics we come across a time where we question what is humans "True Moral Grounds" me a 17 year old who studies ethics and philosophy i can conclude that us as humans have a nature of accepting immoral actions and later seeing them as immoral why is that? its because by nature we know what is moral and immoral even if we hold to subjective moral grounds we must conclude what grounds of subjectivity that the person holds to. The objectivity of morality rests on the sole basis that rational agents cannot consistently reject moral requirements. Such requirements derive their full and exclusive force from their rationality. I would like to clear up a common misunderstanding: confusing objective moral values with absolute moral values.
The difference between the two is best seen by looking at their opposites. The opposite of objective is subjective, and the opposite of absolute is relative. Relative means "varying with the circumstances". If moral values are independent of what people think (objective), it does not follow that they are true regardless of the circumstances (that they are absolute). For example, killing an individual for fun might be objectively wrong, but killing in general is not absolutely wrong. Also, if any of you guys bring ethics into this ethics does not equal morality. And shared observed behavior does not imply shared morality. This discussion would be concluded when we first define what is subjective in the grounds of the person who holds to it and we know moral grounds can be seen subjective and objective but one can be explained and the other can be fallacious.

 

[eleos1954]

ethics are objective (defined and generally accepted/practiced by a group), while morals are subjective (varies with the individual)

 

[dóxatotheó]

ethics are objective (defined and generally accepted/practiced by a group), while morals are subjective (varies with the individual)

theres such things as ethical relativism yk lol

 

[eleos1954]

theres such things as ethical relativism yk lol

sure .... The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this.

 

[dóxatotheó]

sure .... The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this.

Ethical relativism, the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.
Ethical relativism | philosophy
it isnt only use for a society and correction i already addressed why us as humans naturally know the difference between right and wrong without theism coming in question but what you said about subjectivity of morality and objectivity of ethics i already addressed hard in my dialogue

 

[EmethAlethia]

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Even Atheists know the truth. And apart from the truth, all morality is subjective. That said, every person in every belief group on the planet knows they love truth and that they have the truth. How does this happen?

2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

The Atheist lost go through the process in Romans 1:18-32. The religious, non-Christian lost go to the scriptures to "Justify" their beliefs and lives, and get complete success as well. Rom. 10:1-3, and those who believe Jesus is their Lord, God and Savior, and who perform the exact same "works" as those who are truly His are covered in Mat. 7. And they will hear Jesus say, "Depart from Me ye who work iniquity ..."

Everyone can have whatever they need to hold fast to whatever they want to believe, whatever "morality" they choose "as" truth. But the truth is it is the truth itself that sets what is moral and what is not, and our Methodology we use tells us which "morality", the morality of truth or the morality of what we want to believe, we manifest in our lives. Ask anyone with a belief why they believe what they do and they will have:

1.) Gathered whatever they can “use” to prove what they “want to believe” to be truth.

2.) Accumulated all evidence they feel might prove all opposing views incorrect.


3.) They assume their beliefs are unquestionable truth, and for that reason, they interpret everything in such a way as to make it all support, or at least not negate, their beliefs. All “valid” data, must support … or at least not negate, their infallible beliefs.


4.) They reinterpret, ignore, discredit, invalidate … anything that doesn’t seem to fit with their views, Why? Their beliefs are “Fact”. Valid data interpreted correctly can’t contradict the facts.


5.) They gather all the other experiences, feelings, data … to solidify their beliefs such as signs, wonders, spiritual gifts or facts about their belief group. Things like: we have a burning in the bosom, we speak in tongues, we perform signs or wonders, a statue of Mary came to life and told us our belief groups views are correct, we have prayed to God for the truth and received “feelings” or even signs from heaven. Or, on a more concrete level: Their belief group is the oldest, largest, fastest growing, wealthiest, has the most experts with doctorates… Include anything that adds assurance that their views and belief group have the most truth.

But those are the things that result in holding fast to every belief possible "as" truth. Gather those things and interpret them the way the other belief group does and you can change your beliefs to fit whatever you want. Your morality will change with them. Is drinking coffee a sin? It is if you gather the right data and pick the right interpretations. The bible says that kids will deliver parents over to be killed and visa versa, and they will believe they are doing a service to God when they do.

Apart from truth, all morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

i already addressed why us as humans naturally know the difference between right and wrong without theism coming in question

When it comes to issues like Gay rights, interracial relationships, Apostasy, killing animals and eating their flesh, slavery, etc. I find it obvious throughout history, humans have always disagreed on the difference between right and wrong; especially when theism comes into question.

 

[stevevw]

Morality is a presumptuous word for me to even bring up, because Atheist, Skeptics, and Gnostics use against all forms of classical theism. High bounds of ignorance creates high grounds of supposed "subjective" morality but in reality many hard grounds of moral issues concerning human species is already consonant to nature of a human the greater grounds of moral issues would kill a person in there grounds of the human mind. Our mind would preconceive things through our consciousnesses that is against what you can see as morally right or wrong its up to what you conceive in your mind. Us as humans and our constant accept-ion of immoral actions and constant polemics we come across a time where we question what is humans "True Moral Grounds" me a 17 year old who studies ethics and philosophy i can conclude that us as humans have a nature of accepting immoral actions and later seeing them as immoral why is that? its because by nature we know what is moral and immoral even if we hold to subjective moral grounds we must conclude what grounds of subjectivity that the person holds to. The objectivity of morality rests on the sole basis that rational agents cannot consistently reject moral requirements. Such requirements derive their full and exclusive force from their rationality. I would like to clear up a common misunderstanding: confusing objective moral values with absolute moral values.
The difference between the two is best seen by looking at their opposites. The opposite of objective is subjective, and the opposite of absolute is relative. Relative means "varying with the circumstances". If moral values are independent of what people think (objective), it does not follow that they are true regardless of the circumstances (that they are absolute). For example, killing an individual for fun might be objectively wrong, but killing in general is not absolutely wrong. Also, if any of you guys bring ethics into this ethics does not equal morality. And shared observed behavior does not imply shared morality. This discussion would be concluded when we first define what is subjective in the grounds of the person who holds to it and we know moral grounds can be seen subjective and objective but one can be explained and the other can be fallacious.

You have hit on an important destinction when talking about objective morality. Those who support subjective morality will use absolute morality as a way to discredit objective morality when the two are differently applied. Morality can be relative for different situations. But there can always be an objectively right or wrong things to do in each of those different situation.