Objective and Subjective Moral values

[truthshift]

A truth is something that people ascribe value to: facts are there to be observed but truths are believed in.

Facts are truths supported by experience or observation.

A truth is something that is an actuality, regardless of whether it is a known fact or not.

Belief only comes into play when people subscribe to a certain ideal and claim it to be a truth.
---

That would make the number of hairs on Isaac Newton's head an absolute truth, not a fact.

 

[allhart]

Facts are truths supported by experience or observation.

A truth is something that is an actuality, regardless of whether it is a known fact or not.

Belief only comes into play when people subscribe to a certain ideal and claim it to be a truth.
---

That would make the number of hairs on Isaac Newton's head an absolute truth, not a fact.

This reminds me of my boys needing me as children ,but soon as the start puberty. I am a dumb ass and don't know nothing, but they don't realize that they need me more now than they ever did at this particular time. Some people never learn from acknowledgment. Its all about experience and some of that experience they find afterward was self evident. Absolute truth can and is known. If you chose to believe it is subjectively up to you and at a calculated risk. Here is an absolute truth. Rich or poor we all are cut down to size in death. For you brought nothing in this world and you will take nothing out. That is absolutely true if you care to believe it or not.

 

[TheBear]

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?

Before I begin, I'd like to see the study you're referring to.

Thank you.

 

[Tenka]

Of course there's absolute truth!

How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died?

Thats an absolute fact, but is a fact the same thing as a truth?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Thats an absolute fact, but is a fact the same thing as a truth?

A very good question.

On the assumption that this is meant as truth as some sort of moral axiom I think it sort of highlights why this objective morality stuff is so silly.

As someone else has said all morality is ultimately subjective. We certainly have axioms derived from a mostly similar experience of life as the same species of animal on this planet. There is a base human psyche involved but of course the variation is HUGE.

I think often times someone's declaration of objective morality is dangerous at worst and misguided at best. Sure we can use relatively harmless and beneficial axioms like murder is bad,etc. But this really doesn't move us towards objective morality. In particularly it highlights how individual situations result in grey areas.

Most of the time on this forum I see these discussions start going into the objective morals derived from the Christian God. And well I think my opinion on that is known.

 

[Verv]

I think the important thing to note is that most human beings have shared goals. We all want to be happy and safe and we want the same things for our loved ones.

Your loved ones want a pony, too? .... chuckle chuckle...

We are therefore in a position to talk about how to achieve these goals. It is these latter discussions which usually get termed "ethical" or "moral" discussions. But actually they are often discussions about the most efficient or prudent way to achieve our common goals. Or, if you are more cynical, they are discussions in which we each try to further our own happiness at the expense of others', under the guise of appearing diplomatic and magnanimous.

I think we generally have some common goals but I think we are still very divided by culture and our own personalities.

I do not want to share such a huge goal with everyone, either, because it becomes reminiscent of fascism or communism.

I am not sure why I posted this reply to this thread because... I really didn't even contribute anything.

But it's a nice gesture.

 

[cantata]

Blah, you've caught me. I'm aware that absolute truth exists in numbers and factual information but, because we cannot measure morals or emotions, there is no absolute truth. The exclusion of an omniscient being necessitates moral relativism because there is no standard and no one with knowledge of a standard.

You are actually contradicting yourself here. I hate to nitpick, but you need to be careful in your language. Absolute truth exists. Perfect knowledge does not exist.

I think the number of hairs on Isaac Newtons head would be an absolute fact, not a truth. A truth is something that people ascribe value to: facts are there to be observed but truths are believed in.

I disagree. A truth is something which is true. Something which is true is true whether or not anyone thinks it is true.

This is mainly just semantics, but I rarely see people proclaiming truths about everyday occurrences like rain, number of peanuts in a bowl or the time of day. These are facts, which of course could be disputed unfruitfully. Truths however, are always somehow ideologically colored.

Sorry, I strongly disagree. I am using the word "truth" in a technical sense. You know - that crazy obscure technical sense that means "something that is true".

Truth is a loaded word, and it can be claimed (and observed) that most people have an individual truth, which somehow, many times is strangely not in accordance with other people's truths. Also, Truth is vague metaterm that many people use when referring to something that cannot yet be known, or maybe never, but is somehow still believed to be 'out there'. There is nothing absolute about truth, except maybe that it is paradoxically unabsolute.

Hnnnng.

I would never use the word "truth" to discuss beliefs which differ from person to person. If something is a truth it is true. Therefore there is no such thing as "my truth" and "your truth"; there is only my belief and your belief. One or both of us may be wrong.

Mainly I agree, except on your use of the word truth. Which is always subjective in my opinion.

I think this is a very misleading way of using the word "truth".

Thats an absolute fact, but is a fact the same thing as a truth?

Yes. Absolutely. This wishy-washiness in the use of the word "truth" is a catastrophically bad idea. It lets people get away with lending their opinions undue authority by saying ridiculous things like "Well it's MY TRUTH" or "It's TRUE FOR ME". No. If it is truth, it is true, and if it is true, it is true "for everyone", whether they know it or not.

The truth, to quote The X Files, is out there.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Subjective morals
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essentia

As to or compared to objective morals

something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive. 2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case. 3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera. –adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ). 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality
<br /> <br />

I think it would have been more fruitful if you had actually linked to definitions of subjective and objective MORALITY rather than definitions of the adjectives:

People who believe in objective morality believe that morality is ultimately akin to physical laws: rigid, unchanging, universal and not depending upon context, culture or motivation. A deed is right or wrong not because of its effects upon a society or an individual, nor because a local culture considers it anathema based on specific traditions, but because it "just is". Occasionally, this is allied with an authoritarianist approach, stating that it is wrong because an exceptionally powerful being or institution has declared it thus rather than because of the aforementioned consequences. (In this case, they are oblivious to the fact that they are basically declaring morality to be UTTERLY subjective, or even random, as they derive them from the decisions and commandments of a single authority, whose choice in the matter was supposedly based upon his own will rather than an evaluation of the possible harm of an act. For if that was the primary factor, authority wouldn't be much of an issue.)

People who recognize that morality is a subjective, culture-specific (yet nowhere near random) phenomenon, on the other hand, acknowledge that human cultures have developed a vast variety of moralities, and that these tend to change over time. As cantata has pointed out, these are nowhere near random for the most part, as they are ultimately governed by the needs and mechanisms of a social community that seeks to live peacefully within itself. Yet it is not objective.

 

[cantata]

Jane, although I agree with most of your post, I think it's possible that you are conflating the meta-ethical position of moral objectivism with the ethical position of moral absolutism. You correctly describe moral objectivism as the notion that moral laws are akin to physical laws, in that they are "natural" and universal; but moral absolutism - that is, the belief that certain deeds are morally wrong regardless of culture or context - is not necessarily the only logical consequence of objectivism. An example of a moral objectivist who is not a moral absolutist is Joseph Fletcher, who pioneered Christian situation ethics. He believed in a single objective moral principle: a principle that one should do the most loving thing in every situation. Clearly, this is not an absolutist position, as it does not prescribe or proscribe any particular acts. However, it is nevertheless an objectivist position, as Fletcher believed that the moral injunction to do the most loving thing is, so to speak, a "natural", universal law.

The question of whether there are objective moral values is entirely separate from the question of what the right kind of moral framework is. Obviously one's position with regard to the former issue will certainly affect one's views about the latter, but nevertheless it is possible to be a moral objectivist and yet believe that acts take their moral value from the context in which they are performed; or to be a moral subjectivist and yet to believe that some acts are wrong in every possible circumstance (although this latter position is far more difficult, philosophically, to defend).

 

[tcampen]

The question of whether there are objective moral values is entirely separate from the question of what the right kind of moral framework is. Obviously one's position with regard to the former issue will certainly affect one's views about the latter, but nevertheless it is possible to be a moral objectivist and yet believe that acts take their moral value from the context in which they are performed; or to be a moral subjectivist and yet to believe that some acts are wrong in every possible circumstance (although this latter position is far more difficult, philosophically, to defend).

Great post, but I don't think the latter position is as difficult as you propose. I can't imagine a world where raping an 6 month old baby would not be objectionable by any rational standard without resorting to absurdities. I would agree that such examples would be relatively small, but they can be identified, and the list could be expanded the more specific one gets. By contrast, your former position still requires establishing the very existence of objective moral values, whiich I contend has not been adequately established (if not logically contradictory).

This is fascinating subject. But I'm not sure the author of the OP is appreciating the depth of the issue.

 

[cantata]

Great post, but I don't think the latter position is as difficult as you propose. I can't imagine a world where raping an 6 month old baby would not be objectionable by any rational standard without resorting to absurdities. I would agree that such examples would be relatively small, but they can be identified, and the list could be expanded the more specific one gets. By contrast, your former position still requires establishing the very existence of objective moral values, whiich I contend has not been adequately established (if not logically contradictory).

Oh, I agree that the establishment of the existence of objective moral values is very difficult; I was talking more about the specific challenges presented by absolutism combined with subjectivism, or relativism combined with objectivism.

This is fascinating subject. But I'm not sure the author of the OP is appreciating the depth of the issue.

I think you might be right there.

 

[allhart]

Oh, I agree that the establishment of the existence of objective moral values is very difficult; I was talking more about the specific challenges presented by absolutism combined with subjectivism, or relativism combined with objectivism.



I think you might be right there.

I do appreciate the depth of this issue/Op and I am reading your post subjectively
This Op has more substance to it. Not In like most posts just being argumentative. This boils it down to the core issue.... I believe this will shine more of a light on the subject to illicit law and we will find out for our selves. In what each other adhere to. More less letting the cat out of the bag. I believe Cantata has something going on here I think, When it comes to love for the common good of the people Objective morals in society is our best bet( in the common good of the people). For most articulated in illicit laws earlier, in like rape is self evident. Most morals issues in society are not shown to have consequences. Like Hollywood in sex. In like Adultery, affairs, divorce,transmitted decease, psychiatry in abortion , statistics in suicide in being sexual active for one's emotional attachment. Sex isn't just about skin on skin or just mechanical. Now where do you stand. Is this your subjective moral view in society we adhering too or should we as society have a objective moral view? In illicit law to adhere to?

 

[quatona]

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.

Are you planning to switch to objective moral values for a change, and if so how are you planning to approach this pursuit?

 

[Polycarp1]

I love these sorts of discussions, because they depend so heavily on what presumptions people bring to the table. So let me set up some postulates.

If there were no God, there would be no objective morality, one existing irrespective of whether there were humans aspiring to it. There might be a moral standard subscribed to by all or most sane humans, but it would be dependent on the common consent of mankind, a product of their consensus as to what is good or evil.

For the remainder of this post, I am going to postulate the existence of God -- a God ontologically prior to the Universe He created, and self-limiting (that is, He is effectively omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and nothing outside Himself limits what He can do or know). Further, this God reveals Himself to mankind under the Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Son persona became incarnate as Jesus the Christ. (We won't go into Trinitarian theology or Christology for this, just presume orthodox Trinitarian doctrine as background for moral theology.)

Now, allow me an excursus for a parallel that may illuminate the point I'm making. Newtonian physics presumes that all matter has inherent characteristics including mass, which is absolute. I.e., if you take a ten-pound rock and chip or abrade away three pounds of it, you have a seven-pound rock -- but you also have three pounds worth of flakes, pebbles, rock dust, etc. Same ten pound, redistributed.

Einsteinian physics says this is relative, that accelerating that rock to high speed makes it mass more. Newtonian physics is true for objects at rest, but is a special case within Einsteinian physics, and relativistic mass is as "real" as rest mass. Something moving so fast its mass doubles behaves as though it weighed 20 pounds, not the 10 pounds it would mass at rest. All the characteristics of an object are relative, based on its speed and the frame of reference you measure it at.

But Einsteinian physics does have an absolute -- the value "c", the speed of light in a vacuum. The Newtonian "absolutes" vary relative to this single Einsteinian absolute, hence "relativity" for Einsteinian physics.

Now, where I am going with this is that when people begin speaking of objective, absolute moral standards, they hold up things like no sex outside marriage, no theft, etc., and deem them as moral absolutes, referencing God's commandments in Scripture as validation for them.

But when Jesus is asked about such matters, He refers us to three specific points -- and they're not the ones usually spelled out by the "objective morality" arguers.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-40, NIV)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12, NIV)

These are God's absolutes, as spelled out by one Person of the Godhead. How they work together is defined in Matthew 25:31-46. "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me."

This sounds suspiciously like Fletcherian situation ethics. But it's not quite the same thing. Like the "absolutes" of Newtonian physics, the standards of the "objective morality" crowd are valid -- within a specific frame of reference. That frame defines most of human behavior. Sexual license is not excused or justified by a slippery Fletcherian situational approach. But when the application of the legalistic absolutes clashes with the application of the Two Great Commandments and/or the Golden Rule, then they come into play, and supersede the specific application of the Law to the particular case at hand.

The Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule together constitute the "speed of light" for God's objective morality. The code of behavior that is usually deemed "objective morality" is true in most cases, just like Newtonian physics is. But when it collides with the Law of Love, it must give way to God's own absolutes.

 

[allhart]

Are you planning to switch to objective moral values for a change, and if so how are you planning to approach this pursuit?

I live to Gods objectives morals and my subjective morals change as I look to adhere to the common good and love for the people. God's illicit rules are more than myself centered view points and you?

 

[allhart]

I love these sorts of discussions, because they depend so heavily on what presumptions people bring to the table. So let me set up some postulates.

If there were no God, there would be no objective morality, one existing irrespective of whether there were humans aspiring to it. There might be a moral standard subscribed to by all or most sane humans, but it would be dependent on the common consent of mankind, a product of their consensus as to what is good or evil.

For the remainder of this post, I am going to postulate the existence of God -- a God ontologically prior to the Universe He created, and self-limiting (that is, He is effectively omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and nothing outside Himself limits what He can do or know). Further, this God reveals Himself to mankind under the Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Son persona became incarnate as Jesus the Christ. (We won't go into Trinitarian theology or Christology for this, just presume orthodox Trinitarian doctrine as background for moral theology.)

Now, allow me an excursus for a parallel that may illuminate the point I'm making. Newtonian physics presumes that all matter has inherent characteristics including mass, which is absolute. I.e., if you take a ten-pound rock and chip or abrade away three pounds of it, you have a seven-pound rock -- but you also have three pounds worth of flakes, pebbles, rock dust, etc. Same ten pound, redistributed.

Einsteinian physics says this is relative, that accelerating that rock to high speed makes it mass more. Newtonian physics is true for objects at rest, but is a special case within Einsteinian physics, and relativistic mass is as "real" as rest mass. Something moving so fast its mass doubles behaves as though it weighed 20 pounds, not the 10 pounds it would mass at rest. All the characteristics of an object are relative, based on its speed and the frame of reference you measure it at.

But Einsteinian physics does have an absolute -- the value "c", the speed of light in a vacuum. The Newtonian "absolutes" vary relative to this single Einsteinian absolute, hence "relativity" for Einsteinian physics.

Now, where I am going with this is that when people begin speaking of objective, absolute moral standards, they hold up things like no sex outside marriage, no theft, etc., and deem them as moral absolutes, referencing God's commandments in Scripture as validation for them.

But when Jesus is asked about such matters, He refers us to three specific points -- and they're not the ones usually spelled out by the "objective morality" arguers.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-40, NIV)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12, NIV)

These are God's absolutes, as spelled out by one Person of the Godhead. How they work together is defined in Matthew 25:31-46. "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me."

This sounds suspiciously like Fletcherian situation ethics. But it's not quite the same thing. Like the "absolutes" of Newtonian physics, the standards of the "objective morality" crowd are valid -- within a specific frame of reference. That frame defines most of human behavior. Sexual license is not excused or justified by a slippery Fletcherian situational approach. But when the application of the legalistic absolutes clashes with the application of the Two Great Commandments and/or the Golden Rule, then they come into play, and supersede the specific application of the Law to the particular case at hand.

The Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule together constitute the "speed of light" for God's objective morality. The code of behavior that is usually deemed "objective morality" is true in most cases, just like Newtonian physics is. But when it collides with the Law of Love, it must give way to God's own absolutes.

I like your thoughts, but on the issue of sexual sin. Paul wrote words that still have the ring of truth. " All other sins a man commits are outside his body,but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

 

[tcampen]

If there were no God, there would be no objective morality, one existing irrespective of whether there were humans aspiring to it. There might be a moral standard subscribed to by all or most sane humans, but it would be dependent on the common consent of mankind, a product of their consensus as to what is good or evil.

Coming a little late to the discussion, you may have missed the point I made about God on this. Objectivity is not about existing independent of humans, but irrespective of the mind - which would necessarily include God's mind. 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. So, before you can "say" God's morality is objective, you have to establish how it exists independent of ANY mind, including God's.

For the remainder of this post, I am going to postulate the existence of God -- a God ontologically prior to the Universe He created, and self-limiting (that is, He is effectively omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and nothing outside Himself limits what He can do or know).

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.

Further, this God reveals Himself to mankind under the Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Son persona became incarnate as Jesus the Christ. (We won't go into Trinitarian theology or Christology for this, just presume orthodox Trinitarian doctrine as background for moral theology.)

This presumption says nothing of objectivity, only authority.

Now, allow me an excursus for a parallel that may illuminate the point I'm making. Newtonian physics presumes that all matter has inherent characteristics including mass, which is absolute. I.e., if you take a ten-pound rock and chip or abrade away three pounds of it, you have a seven-pound rock -- but you also have three pounds worth of flakes, pebbles, rock dust, etc. Same ten pound, redistributed.

I think you're equivacating the word "presume" here. If I have 10 units and subtract 3 units, that 7 remaining units exits objectively. It does not require any "presuming" anything to observe this.

Einsteinian physics says this is relative, that accelerating that rock to high speed makes it mass more. Newtonian physics is true for objects at rest, but is a special case within Einsteinian physics, and relativistic mass is as "real" as rest mass. Something moving so fast its mass doubles behaves as though it weighed 20 pounds, not the 10 pounds it would mass at rest. All the characteristics of an object are relative, based on its speed and the frame of reference you measure it at.

I don't think it's quite that simple. When you increase velocity, there is an energy component also added.

But Einsteinian physics does have an absolute -- the value "c", the speed of light in a vacuum. The Newtonian "absolutes" vary relative to this single Einsteinian absolute, hence "relativity" for Einsteinian physics.

Ok?

Now, where I am going with this is that when people begin speaking of objective, absolute moral standards, they hold up things like no sex outside marriage, no theft, etc., and deem them as moral absolutes, referencing God's commandments in Scripture as validation for them. But when Jesus is asked about such matters, He refers us to three specific points -- and they're not the ones usually spelled out by the "objective morality" arguers.

I think this is where the notion of why analogies are often difficult to use comes to play.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-40, NIV)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12, NIV)

These are God's absolutes, as spelled out by one Person of the Godhead. How they work together is defined in Matthew 25:31-46. "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me."

This sounds suspiciously like Fletcherian situation ethics. But it's not quite the same thing. Like the "absolutes" of Newtonian physics, the standards of the "objective morality" crowd are valid -- within a specific frame of reference. That frame defines most of human behavior. Sexual license is not excused or justified by a slippery Fletcherian situational approach. But when the application of the legalistic absolutes clashes with the application of the Two Great Commandments and/or the Golden Rule, then they come into play, and supersede the specific application of the Law to the particular case at hand.

The Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule together constitute the "speed of light" for God's objective morality. The code of behavior that is usually deemed "objective morality" is true in most cases, just like Newtonian physics is. But when it collides with the Law of Love, it must give way to God's own absolutes.

I must admit that you lost me a little here. Does this mean that two people who really love eachother can have sex outside of marriage and it is not a sin? Perhaps you could apply your moral calculation to some real circumstances and explain why or why not they are moral.

I appreciate your thoughts here, but it still does not establish that objective morality can exist, let alone does exist - even taking your "presumptions" for granted.

 

[allhart]

Coming a little late to the discussion, you may have missed the point I made about God on this. Objectivity is not about existing independent of humans, but irrespective of the mind - which would necessarily include God's mind. 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. So, before you can "say" God's morality is objective, you have to establish how it exists independent of ANY mind, including God's.


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.


I think you're equivacating the word "presume" here. If I have 10 units and subtract 3 units, that 7 remaining units exits objectively. It does not require any "presuming" anything to observe this.


I don't think it's quite that simple. When you increase velocity, there is an energy component also added.


Ok?


I think this is where the notion of why analogies are often difficult to use comes to play.


I must admit that you lost me a little here. Does this mean that two people who really love eachother can have sex outside of marriage and it is not a sin? Perhaps you could apply your moral calculation to some real circumstances and explain why or why not they are moral.

I appreciate your thoughts here, but it still does not establish that objective morality can exist, let alone does exist - even taking your "presumptions" for granted.

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

 

[Garyzenuf]

I like your thoughts, but on the issue of sexual sin. Paul wrote words that still have the ring of truth. " All other sins a man commits are outside his body,but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

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

*

 

[Garyzenuf]

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

I'm sorry, I could only take 2 mins. of Strobel putting words into Atheists mouths.

Is it really possible to have an objective video on objective morals?

What I mean is when chosing a objective moral belief system, don't you use your own subjective morals to decide?

Sort of circular reasoning isn't it?

*