Objective morality

[seeingeyes]

Been hanging out in Philosophy a bit, lately, and one concept that I see coming up over and over is that there is an objective standard of morality that everyone must adhere to. (And, of course, that that objective morality is found in the Bible, even though we argue about what exactly that means.)

Now, I used to be very keen on this particular notion, myself, but now I see things a little differently.

In the ten commandments we have a list: Do this, don't do that. Surely if there is an objective standard of morality it would look something like that. These actions are good, those actions are bad, carved into diamond floating around in the center of the universe somewhere. The trouble comes from the same old stumbling block that trouble always comes from - Jesus.

In the gospels there are commands, of course, but Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "how you measure it, it will be measured to you". These are extremely subjective standards. Or rather, they are one objective standard that must be applied subjectively.

No action, then, is inherently "good" or "bad", but the heart of the actor is what is judged.

Thoughts?

 

[Steeno7]

Jesus did not come to give a moral code for us to conform to, He came to give us Himself, so that His character might be expressed through our behavior. What determines whether an action is "good" or "bad" is the source, and Jesus Christ is the sole source of all good behavior in the Christian.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Been hanging out in Philosophy a bit, lately, and one concept that I see coming up over and over is that there is an objective standard of morality that everyone must adhere to. (And, of course, that that objective morality is found in the Bible, even though we argue about what exactly that means.)

Now, I used to be very keen on this particular notion, myself, but now I see things a little differently.

In the ten commandments we have a list: Do this, don't do that. Surely if there is an objective standard of morality it would look something like that. These actions are good, those actions are bad, carved into diamond floating around in the center of the universe somewhere. The trouble comes from the same old stumbling block that trouble always comes from - Jesus.

In the gospels there are commands, of course, but Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "how you measure it, it will be measured to you". These are extremely subjective standards. Or rather, they are one objective standard that must be applied subjectively.

No action, then, is inherently "good" or "bad", but the heart of the actor is what is judged.

Thoughts?

Yes, Jesus' theology is deontological (grounded in the experience of the moral actor) rather than that of the Torah (grounded in divine command theory).

I subscribe to the generally Catholic theory that there are higher and lesser order goods.

When one obeys the laws of nature as they are known through reason, one is not sinning but is not necessarily obeying the highest good. We are obeying basic precepts of order and justice, which are lesser goods but definite goods nonetheless.

I believe that what Jesus was doing what pointing us to higher order goods, whether through objective divine commands regarding interior behavior (the Sermon on the Mount) or through a subjective heightening of virtuous living (the discourse with the scribe). In the former case, the command that we not feel anger or lust toward our neighbor in no way mitigates the command that we not murder or rape our neighbor. So, too, Jesus' deontological command in no way lessens the law, but demands an even more stringent application at a level that goes behind what we can discover in the natural law of reason.

The Torah is somewhere in between. The Torah does contain many simple commands that one can discover by reason: Do not murder, do not steal. It also contains higher order goods that, even if they do not strictly require divine revelation, are nonetheless usually beyond what reasonable investigation reveals as moral imperatives: the injunction to help a neighbor's animal out of a pit, the forbidding of covetousness. And that, of course, is what we'd expect from a document that is both a national constitution of a state and a moral and religious guide to personal behavior.

I hope this helps.

 

[Harry3142]

seeingeyes-

Jesus did give us a list of both actions and motivations which we were to see as forbidden:

He went on, "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from within and make a man 'unclean.' " (The Gospel of St. Mark 7:20-23,NIV)

 

[granpa]

An objective moral law is not a law that is true for everyone everywhere under all circumstances.
its a law that's true for you at the present time and under your present circumstances
but its true whether you want it to be or not.
It is true because it follows logically from the facts at hand

 

[A New Day]

- Jesus came as a spiritual Messiah then how did he say those things that you tell in your op? I understand it more in the following story:

Luke 12:13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”

That was not the end of the story:

15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

Jesus in his wisdom like always said that he did not come an arbiter that is for material things yet he continued with verse 15, Jesus did not give a direct answer yet He had a greater answer, and I see the same thing when they asked Jesus about the tax for Caesar.

- I see that there are two edges: to give a top priority for the body or to give a top priority to the mind/mouth/heart/spirit, it is like 1 Corinthians 1:22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom

We are in a human body in a material world...

Because of: Matthew 15:11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Then: Galatians 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

means that if I gratify the desires of the flesh my heart is not clean.

What is in the mind/spirit/heart translates in the body with results, the things that we do in the body are not the cause they are the result of our faith in Jesus or the lack of it, and Jesus is good: if Jesus Christ is the sole source of all good behavior in the Christian and my heart is unclean do I have Jesus?

In my humble opinion the conscience for the christian person plays a very important role: for example I sin yet since I know that Jesus loves me why do I want to chose to sin? Jesus and the sin can get along, he came for the sinners, yet Jesus and the will to sin do not get along well.

I may go to the point to say that what I think, I must consider that God hears me, that is when the conscience stops for the person becomes christlike and that is biblical.

- I like to end with the following:

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Just said "If you love me, keep my commandments" -John 14:15, so yes, there are commandments that we are called to follow in the New Testament, but its tied in with love. As a Christian, our actions are tied in with our intent and our love for God. We love God so we do... We have faith, so we work...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Been hanging out in Philosophy a bit, lately, and one concept that I see coming up over and over is that there is an objective standard of morality that everyone must adhere to. (And, of course, that that objective morality is found in the Bible, even though we argue about what exactly that means.)

Now, I used to be very keen on this particular notion, myself, but now I see things a little differently.

In the ten commandments we have a list: Do this, don't do that. Surely if there is an objective standard of morality it would look something like that. These actions are good, those actions are bad, carved into diamond floating around in the center of the universe somewhere. The trouble comes from the same old stumbling block that trouble always comes from - Jesus.

In the gospels there are commands, of course, but Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "how you measure it, it will be measured to you". These are extremely subjective standards. Or rather, they are one objective standard that must be applied subjectively.

No action, then, is inherently "good" or "bad", but the heart of the actor is what is judged.

Thoughts?

When we're born again we're given a new heart 'made of flesh and not of stone'. Inherently implies what is natural so even the good that comes naturally isn't coming from the life of God, it's coming from knowledge of good and evil. God's good isn't our good. Really the only motive that can be judged as coming from God could only be an action coming from non-motive or God motive. Anything else would have to be coming from the knowledge of good and evil. Hope that made sence.

 

[bling]

To do anything right it must be motivated by Godly type Love. God is our parent and as a parent there is some subjectivity to the way His children are parented (especially disciplined).

The problem is with large hierarchal churches since they must have very strict “rules” to control the masses. You can be much more subjective in family situations (local churches).

 

[seeingeyes]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Here's a follow-up question: Do you believe that there are different moral rules/standards for different people?

 

[A New Day]

I think yes and I also think that the moral rules/standards may change for the same person with time because people change.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Here's a follow-up question: Do you believe that there are different moral rules/standards for different people?

Sure thing, I hope you found it helpful.

In keeping with the Reformational doctrine of vocation, I hold that the universal grounds for morality are virtue ethics and natural law, but these are applied different on the basis of one's role.

So a father may discipline his own child, but, unless acting as proxy for another father, may not discipline others. A surgeon may cut someone open, but I really ought not to. A soldier in wartime, having made every reasonable attempt to avoid collateral damage, may not be held accountable for noncombatant deaths even when he knows there are citizens near the battle, but a police officer must make more serious efforts to keep innocent civilians clear of operations.

All of these examples are grounded in universal norms of virtue and in natural law accessible through reason. But each distinction requires evaluation based on an individual's vocation, which is a God-given calling to certain duties and responsibilities.

The really interesting moral quandaries arise when certain individuals have a bundle of vocations (we all wear multiple hats) that come into conflict: the black-American surgeon volunteering in a prison who is assigned to save the life of a Aryan nation con who has been shanked; the military officer who, to protect his nation, is forced to call in an air strike on an invading enemy force that is rolling through his family's neighborhood.

Soooo much more interesting than gays and abortion.

 

[seeingeyes]

Sure thing, I hope you found it helpful.

In keeping with the Reformational doctrine of vocation, I hold that the universal grounds for morality are virtue ethics and natural law, but these are applied different on the basis of one's role.

So a father may discipline his own child, but, unless acting as proxy for another father, may not discipline others. A surgeon may cut someone open, but I really ought not to. A soldier in wartime, having made every reasonable attempt to avoid collateral damage, may not be held accountable for noncombatant deaths even when he knows there are citizens near the battle, but a police officer must make more serious efforts to keep innocent civilians clear of operations.

All of these examples are grounded in universal norms of virtue and in natural law accessible through reason. But each distinction requires evaluation based on an individual's vocation, which is a God-given calling to certain duties and responsibilities.

The really interesting moral quandaries arise when certain individuals have a bundle of vocations (we all wear multiple hats) that come into conflict: the black-American surgeon volunteering in a prison who is assigned to save the life of a Aryan nation con who has been shanked; the military officer who, to protect his nation, is forced to call in an air strike on an invading enemy force that is rolling through his family's neighborhood.

Soooo much more interesting than gays and abortion.

 

[bling]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Here's a follow-up question: Do you believe that there are different moral rules/standards for different people?

yes

 

[bottomofsandal]

yes

I think yes and I also think that the moral rules/standards may change for the same person with time because people change.

...no moral absolutes then ?

...truth is relative or subjective ?



Or are you saying the person changes and moves towards perfect truth ?

 

[seeingeyes]

...no moral absolutes then ?

...truth is relative or subjective ?



Or are you saying the person changes and moves towards perfect truth ?

The truth is Jesus Christ, and the way he relates to each of us is different. He doesn't hand a rich man his tunic, and he doesn't yell at a poor man for not giving enough.

 

[bling]

...no moral absolutes then ?

...truth is relative or subjective ?



Or are you saying the person changes and moves towards perfect truth ?

The “right” situation is for a husband to have one wife, but in some societies husband can have multiple wives and if that man or woman later is converted they should stay in their relationship if everyone is comfortable with it.

The “rule” is to Love God first and everyone else second. The specifics of how a person does that is relative.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Subscribing. Hopefully be back online tomorrow.

 

[fhansen]

Been hanging out in Philosophy a bit, lately, and one concept that I see coming up over and over is that there is an objective standard of morality that everyone must adhere to. (And, of course, that that objective morality is found in the Bible, even though we argue about what exactly that means.)

Now, I used to be very keen on this particular notion, myself, but now I see things a little differently.

In the ten commandments we have a list: Do this, don't do that. Surely if there is an objective standard of morality it would look something like that. These actions are good, those actions are bad, carved into diamond floating around in the center of the universe somewhere. The trouble comes from the same old stumbling block that trouble always comes from - Jesus.

In the gospels there are commands, of course, but Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "how you measure it, it will be measured to you". These are extremely subjective standards. Or rather, they are one objective standard that must be applied subjectively.

No action, then, is inherently "good" or "bad", but the heart of the actor is what is judged.

Thoughts?

Nope, that would make morality completely relative for all practical purposes. And that was Adam's sin; by disobeying God he made himself the standard for righteousness/morality, and ever since then human morality has been relative and subjective. Murder and rape are objectively wrong. Love fulfills the law because love, simply, never murders, never rapes, etc, etc; it never harms its neighbor IOW. In that way the objective morality of the Ten Commandments, for example, is achieved but the right way, by love, wrought in us by grace.

 

[seeingeyes]

Nope, that would make morality completely relative for all practical purposes. And that was Adam's sin; by disobeying God he made himself the standard for righteousness/morality, and ever since then human morality has been relative and subjective. Murder and rape are objectively wrong. Love fulfills the law because love, simply, never murders, never rapes, etc, etc; it never harms its neighbor IOW. In that way the objective morality of the Ten Commandments, for example, is achieved but the right way, by love, wrought in us by grace.

What is your take on "how you measure it, it will be measured to you"?