Objective and Subjective Moral values

[allhart]

What about gluttony, sloth, Alcohol/drug abuse etc?

*

You make legitimate points. I can concur impart. There is similarity to your points.

 

[cantata]

Whoa, whoa. Guys. Fletcher's situation ethics does not require you to advocate free love. "The most loving thing" is, I think Fletcher would be at pains to point out, wholeheartedly elucidated by scripture. (The guy was a Christian, after all.) You are entitled to make an argument that sexual monogamy in the context of matrimony is the most loving thing, if you think that's what's best for your (future) spouse, your hildren, society in general, &c.

 

[tcampen]

Sr. here is a much needed expression in a 3 min clip in objective moral values. God speed!http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1211

This is not Lee Strobel, but Dr. William Craig. I am extremely familiar with Craig's arguments, but he fails to make the case the objective moral values exist even IF god exists. He fails to state why values are not subjective as to god, or how morals can exist apart from the mind - meaning any mind. That includes Gods. Craig skates around this, even when invoking Aquinas. He just assumes the existence of god is synonomous with objective moral values, when that is just not the case. He also tries to exempt God from the test of objectivity, clearly invoking special pleading (which Craig does regularly with virtually all his arguments).

So when Craig proclaims, "If God does does not exist, objective moral values cannot exist", he is playing several games, and still fails to make the case. Oh, and did I mention equivocation? Lots of that in his arguments as well.

 

[tcampen]

I also think there needs to be a distinction between subjective morals and the objective consequences of actions and decision that may be based on those morals. We can objectively measure consequences, as they are not abstract concepts. And such data can assist in evaluating the effecacy of various moral standards.

 

[cantata]

tcampen, I just want to ascertain your position: if God had created moral qualities or laws which were "out there" - like the laws of physics or (arguably) mathematics - would you regard them as objective moral laws? What if it were somehow built into the mechanics of the universe that, say, killing a child were wrong?

(I'm not saying I think such a thing would be possible; I'm just wondering whether, for morality to be objective, you require that it not be part of God's creation, or whether you require simply that the standard not be solely confined to God's mind.)

 

[quatona]

Fro precision´s sake we would have to firstly clarify that so far the established difference is not that your morals are objective and mine are not, but that you claim yours to be objective and I don´t.

I live to Gods objectives morals

If there is a god and if this god has handed out a set of morals (two big ifs that to take for premises means stacking the deck, anyways), what would make them objective (as opposed to this god´s subjective morals)? Maybe you could clarify your terminology?

and my subjective morals change as I look to adhere to the common good and love for the people.

So do mine, but what´s that got to do with objective vs. subjective, and what´s that got to do with a god?

God's illicit rules are more than myself centered view points and you?

Ascribing your morality to a god neither makes it any more credible nor makes it any more objective.

 

[cantata]

God's illicit rules are more than myself centered view points and you?

What do you mean by "God's illicit rules"?

Illicit:
1. Not legally permitted or authorised; unlicensed; unlawful.
2. Disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons.

Perhaps you mean explicit?

 

[tcampen]

tcampen, I just want to ascertain your position: if God had created moral qualities or laws which were "out there" - like the laws of physics or (arguably) mathematics - would you regard them as objective moral laws? What if it were somehow built into the mechanics of the universe that, say, killing a child were wrong?

(I'm not saying I think such a thing would be possible; I'm just wondering whether, for morality to be objective, you require that it not be part of God's creation, or whether you require simply that the standard not be solely confined to God's mind.)

Thanks for the question. I don't see how morals can be considered "thing". The are an abstraction of the mind that give value to certain actions and intentions. That is not to say morals do not exist. Just as beauty exists, so do morals. Ultimately, I ask whether morals exist apart from the mind. Take away all minds, the laws of physics would still exist - just as they did for billions of years before any intellegent life existed. (But the word "law" is a further value we humans have put on what are really the properties of the universe.) Do the same with regard to morals, and there are no morals apart from the mind.

But as it relates to humanity, I can see circumstances where there is no reasonable exception to a moral rule, which would render that rule absolute. But absolute does not make it objective - it only makes it without exception.

So no, I do not see how morals can exist "out there" in the universe in any form apart from an abstraction of the mind. If it did, what is it? What is its form or properties? How does it exist without a mind?

Hope that helps.

 

[cantata]

So no, I do not see how morals can exist "out there" in the universe in any form apart from an abstraction of the mind. If it did, what is it? What is its form or properties? How does it exist without a mind?

Hope that helps.

It does, and I agree with you.

There are philosophers (G E Moore would be an example) who believe in moral properties. I find the idea incoherent too, mainly because I can't imagine what they'd be like or how we'd detect them.

 

[allhart]

What time is it?

 

[Wyzaard]

Just saying a moral comes from God does not make it objective. It might make it authoritative, but that is not the same as objective. If god deems something right or wrong, all that means is that it is subjective as to god. And you can't simply define your way out of this by saying whatever God creates or says is "objective", for that would create an endless stream of absurdities.

That still does not create an objective morality. This still confuses the concept of authoritative with objective. Nothing of your "presupposition" changes this logical reality.

This presumption says nothing of objectivity, only authority.

This is a HUGE hurdle that few theists acknowledge.

 

[Nooj]

This is a HUGE hurdle that few theists acknowledge.

I agree. Why does authority translate into objectivity?

 

[Wyzaard]

I agree. Why does authority translate into objectivity?

Cause it does, OR ELSE!

 

[allhart]

Moral Objective is do to endowment in absolute truth.There is absolute truth! Ya know. Just like you can't be moderately dead. You live in a spectrum of one side or the other. This is also relative to freedom. You are free or your not and God has given you a life time to chose him in freedom. You are for him or against him....

 

[Zaac]

I have recently come across a study on subjective and objective moral values. This explains a whole lot in our discussions on these forums for me. In how I view peoples approach to conversation. I see that 95% of the popular post is on subjective morals values and not on objective morals. What do you say? or think about the definitions and the indications of one's that give advise on subjective morals?

It's ultimately about absolute truth. You have those who know that there is absolute truth and you have those who reject it.

If there is no absolute truth as is given by God's Word, then truth becomes subjective to whatever every person wants it to be. That opens the door for every person to justify doing whatever he wants, and basically setting up his own moral code.

It's secular humanism whereby man wants to place himself in the position of God. The devil tried to do the same thing.

 

[tcampen]

Moral Objective is do to endowment in absolute truth.

I'm not sure what this means.

There is absolute truth! Ya know.

Yes, but that is irrelevant to whether morals are objectively based. And arbitrarily labeling a being as "truth" does nothing to advance the discussion.

Just like you can't be moderately dead. You live in a spectrum of one side or the other. This is also relative to freedom. You are free or your not

First of all, when exactly is a person dead? The moment his heart stops beating? The moment his brain is no longer capable of conscious thought? The moment 50% of his body is rotten away 6 feet underground?
Freedom is an even better example of NOT being all or nothing. Freedom is relative to one's circumstances. There are many, many things you are NOT free to do that you might be in another part of the world, or if the rules were just a little different. But you might be more free, relatively speaking, in America than in, say, China, for example.

(See my point? Things are not nearly as all or nothing as you would have us believe.)

and God has given you a life time to chose him in freedom. You are for him or against him....

Again, more false dichotomies. First of all, who "Him" is is utterly relative to the individual. I can guarantee you there are many other christians here in CR who materially disagree with you on aspects of who and what God is. Second, just because I don't choose to believe what YOU believe, that does not mean I've rejected God. It only means I may have rejected YOUR concept of God. Finally, do you really think God is interested in anything more than absolute sincere honesty with one's self as it concerns God, or with people being consistent with what you personally believe?

 

[tcampen]

It's ultimately about absolute truth. You have those who know that there is absolute truth and you have those who reject it.

If there is no absolute truth as is given by God's Word, then truth becomes subjective to whatever every person wants it to be.

First of all, "truth" is not a thing unto itself, but rather a statement that either accurately reflects reality or does not. Whether the bible is or is not god's word, truth still exists. "2+2=4" is an absolutely true statement regardless of the very existence of your god.

That opens the door for every person to justify doing whatever he wants, and basically setting up his own moral code.

But that's what you've done anyway, even if you don't realize it. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Pick any controversial moral issue of the day, be it capital punishment, war, or homosexuality. Good, bible-believing Christians who all claim to follow the exact same Word of God for God's will in these matters come down on different sides without exception. Unless people are "setting up their own moral codes", this phenomena would not exist. Thus, everyone (including you) actually does exactly what you say we shouldn't do. The question is whether we can all be honest enough to acknowledge it.

It's secular humanism whereby man wants to place himself in the position of God. The devil tried to do the same thing.

And Christians do it too, only they claim it is God's will and intention. Again, you can continue with your delusion, or you can accept the Truth.

 

[Zaac]

First of all, "truth" is not a thing unto itself, but rather a statement that either accurately reflects reality or does not.

Au contraire. The Truth is a person: Jesus Christ John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Whether the bible is or is not god's word, truth still exists. "2+2=4" is an absolutely true statement regardless of the very existence of your god.

Absent a standard of truth, you can't say that 2+2=4. Had the God of Creation not made a 1st day and established a measurement, you couldn't have a 2 to add to another 2.

But that's what you've done anyway, even if you don't realize it. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Pick any controversial moral issue of the day, be it capital punishment, war, or homosexuality. Good, bible-believing Christians who all claim to follow the exact same Word of God for God's will in these matters come down on different sides without exception.

The inability of the Body of Christ to get in one accord does not change God's Word from absolute truth. The Church has been overrun by a liberal movement in which people have rejected God's Word AS IS as Hisave given Christians and others license to sin. This is one of the reasons why judgment will begin with the Church. There simply is not issue of morality that I can't tell you with absolute assurance is right or wrong based upon what God's Word says.

Unless people are "setting up their own moral codes", this phenomena would not exist. Thus, everyone (including you) actually does exactly what you say we shouldn't do. The question is whether we can all be honest enough to acknowledge it.

I make it a point to tell folks what God's Word says and for them to take it to Him in prayer to get His discernment.

There's too much leaning on our own understanding instead of His. That's why we have so many interpretations of the SAME Word.

God is a God of ORDER. The SAME GOD does not give different interpretations of the SAME WORD. That's the kind of confusion that comes from unGodly sources of discernment.

And Christians do it too, only they claim it is God's will and intention. Again, you can continue with your delusion, or you can accept the Truth.

I have the Truth. Those who want the Truth receive it. Those who don't continue to jump from thing to thing as their source of truth. It's kinda sad.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Moral Objective is do to endowment in absolute truth.There is absolute truth! Ya know. Just like you can't be moderately dead. You live in a spectrum of one side or the other. This is also relative to freedom. You are free or your not and God has given you a life time to chose him in freedom. You are for him or against him....

False dilemma fallacy. Honestly I feel silly to point it out. You should know better. Compounded by the many false dilemmas one could concoct simply being using dead religions really. And well..when a person tells me I am either for them or against them. I take that as a threat from people who more than likely don't have many best interests at heart but their own. So exactly what are you trying to convince me of but avarice?

It's ultimately about absolute truth. You have those who know that there is absolute truth and you have those who reject it.

If there is no absolute truth as is given by God's Word, then truth becomes subjective to whatever every person wants it to be. That opens the door for every person to justify doing whatever he wants, and basically setting up his own moral code.

It's secular humanism whereby man wants to place himself in the position of God. The devil tried to do the same thing.

Yet again, false dilemma fallacy? Am I to trust the words of someone being deceitful in their choice of words? Yet you claim so candidly that you are a torchbearer to the right and proper moral pathways. But I suppose the ends justify the means by which people are convinced of the right and true path eh?

Au contraire. The Truth is a person: Jesus Christ John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

And yet when I see these words, when I hear others repeat them. My thoughts are not to their supposed validity. I might as well wonder if Herecles really did kill that Hydra. Instead I think of the waste the centuries have provided because of those words, the waste in human life and in knowledge.I certainly know which I value, one ancient Hebrew God, or lives wasted.

The inability of the Body of Christ to get in one accord does not change God's Word from absolute truth. The Church has been overrun by a liberal movement in which people have rejected God's Word AS IS as Hisave given Christians and others license to sin. This is one of the reasons why judgment will begin with the Church. There simply is not issue of morality that I can't tell you with absolute assurance is right or wrong based upon what God's Word says.

Was the Council of Nicea's choice to pursue the agenda of deciding the orthodoxy of the NT the will of that God or simply human greed? If all actions can be justified as the will of the one true God, I wonder then what sort of questioning would be permitted. I suspect none.

I make it a point to tell folks what God's Word says and for them to take it to Him in prayer to get His discernment.

There's too much leaning on our own understanding instead of His. That's why we have so many interpretations of the SAME Word.

God is a God of ORDER. The SAME GOD does not give different interpretations of the SAME WORD. That's the kind of confusion that comes from unGodly sources of discernment.

I agree, he is the same. How quick is the Christian tongue to confess the sameness of the God that drowed countless people. Women and children and babies. Who ordered the Israelites to slaughter? Is he still the same?

I have the Truth. Those who want the Truth receive it. Those who don't continue to jump from thing to thing as their source of truth. It's kinda sad.

Having the truth is humility in self evidence. Having the Truth is a suicide bomber.

 

[tcampen]

Au contraire. The Truth is a person: Jesus Christ John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

This is very telling. In a thread where we are discussion objective vs. subjective, you use your subjective beliefs as evidence. See what I mean?

[Absent a standard of truth, you can't say that 2+2=4. Had the God of Creation not made a 1st day and established a measurement, you couldn't have a 2 to add to another 2.

This is essentially a falacy known as "begging the question". You can't use your conclusion as your premise and expect to be taken seriously. But even so, God creating the universe and setting time in motion has NOTHING to do with a standard of "truth" or the internal truth of "2+2=4". It may facilitate our existence to recognize the math equation, but the creation itself does not establish it.

The inability of the Body of Christ to get in one accord does not change God's Word from absolute truth.

My point is that this reality PROVES that christians use their own subjective notions of morality and impute it onto God's.

The Church has been overrun by a liberal movement in which people have rejected God's Word AS IS as Hisave given Christians and others license to sin. This is one of the reasons why judgment will begin with the Church. There simply is not issue of morality that I can't tell you with absolute assurance is right or wrong based upon what God's Word says.

So YOU are correct in YOUR assessment of God's morality according to the bible, and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong? Seriously, that's exactly what your are implying here.

I make it a point to tell folks what God's Word says and for them to take it to Him in prayer to get His discernment.

Which is exactly what people do, and come down on opposite sides of big moral questions.

There's too much leaning on our own understanding instead of His. That's why we have so many interpretations of the SAME Word.

And why is everyone who has a different understanding of God's morality according to the bible less correct than YOU? Why are you so sure YOU are correct, and others who disagree with YOU are "leaning too much on their own understanding"? Why do you exempt YOURSELF from what you recognize others are doing?

God is a God of ORDER. The SAME GOD does not give different interpretations of the SAME WORD. That's the kind of confusion that comes from unGodly sources of discernment.

So are Catholics "unGodly"? Half the "Body of Christ" is just out to lunch when their faith opposes the death penalty at all times, any birth control, or recognizes the scientific truth of biological evolution?

I have the Truth. Those who want the Truth receive it. Those who don't continue to jump from thing to thing as their source of truth. It's kinda sad.

I think it's even more sad when people fail to realize they've created their own truth, think it's really God's, and view all those who disagree with their own views as being against God.