Subjectivity

[funyun]

BrotherChristian, the idea to "do the right thing" is completely cultural. Despite what your typical Bruckheimer-esque movies may suggest, a person brought up during ancient times (when societally things were much much different) and who is, from an early age, exposed to violence, rape, murder, slavery, and general warfare, will not have any qualms about leading a life of more of the same. It's what he/she is used to. The capacity lies within experience.

Besides, the "right thing" is in and of itself subjective.

 

[ischus]

It is true, however, that doing what is 'good' (whatever that may be) is objectively moral. The Moral standard is to do 'good' and the culture plays a large part in deciding what that is.

 

[brotherChristian]

You can't fault me for using a term like 'do the right thing.' I put it in quotations for a reason. I am a lower, lower middle class high school drop-out with a very limited vocabulary.
Why 'in ancient times' did Jesus teach that it is not OK to rape, murder, wage war? He just made it up? (Or for the sake of argument, whoever wrote the earliest draft of the gospels.) Does a society's valuing acts of cruelty somehow make them any less immoral? Does the ethical paradigm of a society shape morality, even if it allows for the distribution of cowpox-infested blankets to affect genocide? Do you think it's OK for your father to be dragged from your house and summarily executed for being a suspected subversive? I bet you don't, living in America; but would you think it's OK if you lived in a place where that happens daily? Honestly?
I suggest that the 'right thing' is not subjective. I'm not talking about laws and customs; things which are controlled by environment and the whim of whoever is in charge of earthly affairs.

 

[Carico]

It is true, however, that doing what is 'good' (whatever that may be) is objectively moral. The Moral standard is to do 'good' and the culture plays a large part in deciding what that is.

The Nazi's thought that doing good was to get rid of the Jews because they blamed the Jews for their demise in WWI. Most Germans agreed with them which is how Hitler got into power. Again, once man decides what "good" is, he can rationalize anything he wants as being moral. It's pretty scary how many people don't see that. But that's the power that the sin of pride has over us.

 

[brotherChristian]

The Nazi's thought that doing good was to get rid of the Jews because they blamed the Jews for their demise in WWI. Most Germans agreed with them which is how Hitler got into power. Again, once man decides what "good" is, he can rationalize anything he wants as being moral. It's pretty scary how many people don't see that. But that's the power that the sin of pride has over us.

That's a good point about rationalizing things and it supports the notion that God supplied us with the free will to act as we wish regardless of morality. But I see it as a fallacy to think that this makes morality subjective. Immoral acts (like the Nazi final solution) don't suddenly become moral just because someone engages in it; not even if thousands of people engage in it. They are excersising their free will as human beings to act in an amoral manner.

 

[funyun]

You can't fault me for using a term like 'do the right thing.' I put it in quotations for a reason. I am a lower, lower middle class high school drop-out with a very limited vocabulary.
Why 'in ancient times' did Jesus teach that it is not OK to rape, murder, wage war? He just made it up? (Or for the sake of argument, whoever wrote the earliest draft of the gospels.) Does a society's valuing acts of cruelty somehow make them any less immoral? Does the ethical paradigm of a society shape morality, even if it allows for the distribution of cowpox-infested blankets to affect genocide? Do you think it's OK for your father to be dragged from your house and summarily executed for being a suspected subversive? I bet you don't, living in America; but would you think it's OK if you lived in a place where that happens daily? Honestly?
I suggest that the 'right thing' is not subjective. I'm not talking about laws and customs; things which are controlled by environment and the whim of whoever is in charge of earthly affairs.

I didn't mean to imply I was chastising you. If you took any offense I apologize.

Anyway, first is first. Let's be theologically honest here: Jesus was not the first figure, character, whatever, to talk about what he did. The Teachings of Buddha, whether Buddha was real or not, were around 500 years before Jesus. And the two doctrines are very, very similar in terms of social conduct. Early Greek philosophers talked about such things as well. The Rule of Reciprocity is very old indeed, and Christianity does not have any claim to its invention. Period.

Is what we, in our culture, call "moral conduct" something that was "made up", as you ask? Essentially, yes. It's not like someone one day just went "hey let's be nice to each other"; there has probably always been some kind of standard of empathy (which really is the root of all the moral doctrines you are referring to). I mean, social animals display these characteristics, though in a more "primitive" fashion. Why? Because it is essential for their survival. Organization and cooperation are essential. And cooperation demands rules. Thus, ethics; thus morals, which are really just fine-tuned ethics.

What I'm saying though, is that a child raised in a place where our sense of mroal doctrines are not ever practiced would result in a person completely 1) unaware there is another way and 2) unable to perform in said other way. We inherit our morals culturally.

Do I think it's OK for my father to be executed? Of course not. You're equating my realization that objective morality is nonexistant with the diea that I am amoral because of that. This is a false dichotomy. I have morals, just as you do. I feel as strongly abotut hem as you do. It's just that I have the philosophical realization that objective morality is an incoherent concept. Morality, in all its personaifications, is subjective. The "right thing", as you put it, are related and irrevocably linked with laws and customs. Laws and customs stem from what the "right thing" is, as defined by that culture. Here in America we tend to look down upon eating dogs and cats. In China it is quite common. Is there an objective viewpoint here?

 

[ischus]

The Nazi's thought that doing good was to get rid of the Jews because they blamed the Jews for their demise in WWI. Most Germans agreed with them which is how Hitler got into power. Again, once man decides what "good" is, he can rationalize anything he wants as being moral. It's pretty scary how many people don't see that. But that's the power that the sin of pride has over us.

I agree. If you take this in light of my first post it might make more sense. My point here was to show that doing 'good' is valued by everyone because it is an objective standard. People (and entire cultures) can be wrong (against God's objective moral principles) in what they see as 'good' but they still value doing what is 'good.' My point is that we have an intrinsic desire for good. What we need is the moral objectivity of God to lead us into the direction of that good. He does this by communicating with us. We, in all our subjectivity, have the ability to comprehend and get close enough to an understanding of what 'good' looks like and does not look like.

(btw, Nazi Germany is an extreme example. Many cultural 'goods' are morally neutral.)

blessings,

ischus

 

[Carico]

I agree. If you take this in light of my first post it might make more sense. My point here was to show that doing 'good' is valued by everyone because it is an objective standard. People (and entire cultures) can be wrong (against God's objective moral principles) in what they see as 'good' but they still value doing what is 'good.' My point is that we have an intrinsic desire for good. What we need is the moral objectivity of God to lead us into the direction of that good. He does this by communicating with us. We, in all our subjectivity, have the ability to comprehend and get close enough to an understanding of what 'good' looks like and does not look like.

(btw, Nazi Germany is an extreme example. Many cultural 'goods' are morally neutral.)

blessings,

ischus

The ONLY objective moral standards are God's laws because God's laws do NOT come from human beings. God's laws are the ONLY laws that come from OUTSIDE the mind of the human being, and therefore, are the only truly objective laws. ANY morals that come from human beings are subjective REGARDLESS of how many people agree or disagree with them! That was my whole point about a whole country in Nazi Germany agreeing with Hitler. A majority believing in something does NOT necessarily make something moral!

As for man being intrinisically good, Nazi Germany points out this falsehood. Jesus said; "no one is good but God alone." The notion that we are all good also bears out the sin of pride that is rampant in all of us. Who says we are good? Us? That is the epitomoe of arrogance and is again proof that we are NOT good, but by nature, arrogant and boastful. Man's morals are based on the fact that he is by nature good and can therefore make his own laws. That is not only subjective but boastful and proud.

 

[ischus]

The ONLY objective moral standards are God's laws because God's laws do NOT come from human beings. God's laws are the ONLY laws that come from OUTSIDE the mind of the human being, and therefore, are the only truly objective laws. ANY morals that come from human beings are subjective REGARDLESS of how many people agree or disagree with them! That was my whole point about a whole country in Nazi Germany agreeing with Hitler. A majority believing in something does NOT necessarily make something moral!

As for man being intrinisically good, Nazi Germany points out this falsehood. Jesus said; "no one is good but God alone." The notion that we are all good also bears out the sin of pride that is rampant in all of us. Who says we are good? Us? That is the epitomoe of arrogance and is again proof that we are NOT good, but by nature, arrogant and boastful. Man's morals are based on the fact that he is by nature good and can therefore make his own laws. That is not only subjective but boastful and proud.

I agree. I believe we are saying basically the same thing in different words. To clarify (since I am not sure if your post was in agreement with or against miine), the desire that we have for good comes by way of God's design. He intends for us to arrive at his truth because we are all in the serach for what is good.

On the other side, we all have our own conscience as well. While this can be within or outside of God's objective good, the fact is that we ouselves judge to some extent what is good. The conscience is completely subjective; God's truth is completely objective. The goal (of a Christian) ought to be the matching and forming of the conscience with God's truth. Ironically, this happens by a subjective method (interpretation) where the two are mixed; therefore, we can never arrive at a complete objectivity if it comes from outside of ourself.

So, all morals, even if they are from God, will be filtered through our own subjective humanness. God has no problem with this, and neither should we. What can do is get close to undestanding what God wants if we really search for it, which is what I have said all along.

 

[The Bellman]

Every decision we make and every opinion we hold is a subjective one by definition.

If we assume that there is in fact an objective morality what path do we have to reach it but through subjectivity? In other words, if I am presented with the objective moral code in all its glory all I have to decide whether it is in fact the objective moral code is my subjective reasoning.

So we are left in subjectivity.

To my mind, this deals a savage blow to the argument that without an objective moral code we are trapped in subjectivity and hence moral nihilism, as even with an objective moral code we end up in the same place.

Excellent post. It demonstrates that the idea of an objective morality is silly because even if such a thing exists, we have no way of knowing what it is or even if it does exist.

 

[radorth]

Every decision we make and every opinion we hold is a subjective one by definition.

If we assume that there is in fact an objective morality what path do we have to reach it but through subjectivity? In other words, if I am presented with the objective moral code in all its glory all I have to decide whether it is in fact the objective moral code is my subjective reasoning.

So we are left in subjectivity.

To my mind, this deals a savage blow to the argument that without an objective moral code we are trapped in subjectivity and hence moral nihilism, as even with an objective moral code we end up in the same place.

You are mistaken, at least about me. Is the example of the early Christians ransoming slaves objective or subjective? Is it a first or not? Is it an fact that "fundy" revivalists such as Whitefield, Finney and Seymour were the most egalitarian practicioners of their time or not? Were they ahead of their time or not?

I deal in historical, verifiable objective facts as much as anyone here. Either the Christians have set virtually all the standards we now see as morally right or they did not. I have repeatedly challenged skeptics to give me objective examples of non-Christians salting the earth, and all I have seen so far is assertions like "Well the founders were really deists- honest they were."

Yes most skeptics are locked into their subjectivity as are most Christians, but as I have pointed out, both sides have their truly objective, unbiased thinkers. Like Will Durant, they can praise the medieval monks and condemn their popes in the same breath. Such thinkers happen to be very rare, but I must recognize their objectivity even though I might disagree with some conclusions. Perhaps the best test of objectivity is whether you can recognize it in others whom you may disagree with.

Rad

 

[Randall McNally]

You are mistaken, at least about me. Is the example of the early Christians ransoming slaves objective or subjective? Is it a first or not? Is it an fact that "fundy" revivalists such as Whitefield, Finney and Seymour were the most egalitarian practicioners of their time or not? Were they ahead of their time or not?

I deal in historical, verifiable objective facts as much as anyone here. Either the Christians have set virtually all the standards we now see as morally right or they did not. I have repeatedly challenged skeptics to give me objective examples of non-Christians salting the earth, and all I have seen so far is assertions like "Well the founders were really deists- honest they were."

Yes most skeptics are locked into their subjectivity as are most Christians, but as I have pointed out, both sides have their truly objective, unbiased thinkers. Like Will Durant, they can praise the medieval monks and condemn their popes in the same breath. Such thinkers happen to be very rare, but I must recognize their objectivity even though I might disagree with some conclusions. Perhaps the best test of objectivity is whether you can recognize it in others whom you may disagree with.

It appears that you are conflating the vernacular meaning of "objective" with the philsophical meaning.

 

[Kris_J]

Every decision we make and every opinion we hold is a subjective one by definition.

If we assume that there is in fact an objective morality what path do we have to reach it but through subjectivity? In other words, if I am presented with the objective moral code in all its glory all I have to decide whether it is in fact the objective moral code is my subjective reasoning.

So we are left in subjectivity.

To my mind, this deals a savage blow to the argument that without an objective moral code we are trapped in subjectivity and hence moral nihilism, as even with an objective moral code we end up in the same place.

What you say may be the case, however, if there is an objective moral code to reach an absolute ideal state, you cannot ignore the fact that although whatever subjective interpretation of that objective moral may be, there are levels of subjectivity - ie. one interpretation is less subjective than another.

Given enough time & resources/knowledge etc, the theory is that the more we progress, the less subjective we become & the closer we are to an objective concept of right & wrong.

 

[The Bellman]

The ONLY objective moral standards are God's laws because God's laws do NOT come from human beings. God's laws are the ONLY laws that come from OUTSIDE the mind of the human being, and therefore, are the only truly objective laws.

Firstly, a set of moral standards laid down by god wouldn't be objective - they'd still be subjective, just from HIS point of view, instead of any human's. They might (arguably) be a better (or worse) set of moral standards than others, but they'd still be subjective.

And if there were ANY way of proving - or even evidencing - that a particular set of moral standards actually came from god, then you might be able to prove that such a thing exists. But since there is no way of evidencing such a thing, the idea that it exists at all is without supporting evidence.

 

[ischus]

Firstly, a set of moral standards laid down by god wouldn't be objective - they'd still be subjective, just from HIS point of view, instead of any human's. They might (arguably) be a better (or worse) set of moral standards than others, but they'd still be subjective.

And if there were ANY way of proving - or even evidencing - that a particular set of moral standards actually came from god, then you might be able to prove that such a thing exists. But since there is no way of evidencing such a thing, the idea that it exists at all is without supporting evidence.

Technically, you are right. God's morality is subjective by definition, but it is objective from our perspective (the one we are writing from). As far as your second point, as you know, you would first have to accept the reality of God before you could accept a Divine moral standard. This is a different topic, however.

 

[Kris_J]

Firstly, a set of moral standards laid down by god wouldn't be objective - they'd still be subjective, just from HIS point of view, instead of any human's. They might (arguably) be a better (or worse) set of moral standards than others, but they'd still be subjective.

And if there were ANY way of proving - or even evidencing - that a particular set of moral standards actually came from god, then you might be able to prove that such a thing exists. But since there is no way of evidencing such a thing, the idea that it exists at all is without supporting evidence.

The whole point of being the one & only God is that God's standard is not subjective as it is not subjected to anything, & everything else is subjected to it.

 

[The Bellman]

Technically, you are right. God's morality is subjective by definition, but it is objective from our perspective (the one we are writing from). As far as your second point, as you know, you would first have to accept the reality of God before you could accept a Divine moral standard. This is a different topic, however.

I don't know what 'objective from our perspective' could possibly mean. Objective means from ANY perspective...that's the whole point.

 

[NewToLife]

Every decision we make and every opinion we hold is a subjective one by definition.

This statement is in fact extremely weak. It is made as though it is objectively true but if that is the case then it is impossible for it to be objectively true, if you admit that it is merely a subjective opinion the following arguement basically falls apart.

You cannot state that there is only subjective opinion as though it were an objective fact, to do so is deeply contradictory. On the other hand of course one who states that there are objective truths can say so without contradicting himself.

 

[Carico]

Firstly, a set of moral standards laid down by god wouldn't be objective - they'd still be subjective, just from HIS point of view, instead of any human's. They might (arguably) be a better (or worse) set of moral standards than others, but they'd still be subjective.

And if there were ANY way of proving - or even evidencing - that a particular set of moral standards actually came from god, then you might be able to prove that such a thing exists. But since there is no way of evidencing such a thing, the idea that it exists at all is without supporting evidence.

NATURE proves the the rightness of God's laws! One example is that the anus was not created for penile insertion which is why anal sex causes disease! This elementary principle is simply not understood by unbelievers. CHILDREN understand that! but the sex drive reigns supreme so people constantly look for ways to rationalize why there's nothing wrong with anal intercourse.
I will list how God's laws can be proven.

1. if we don't love God above anything else, then we will eventually destroy ourselves through VD, murder, stealing, power, etc.

2. If we put other gods before him then we will worship money, success, greed, etc. which leads to all of the above.

3. If we don't set aside a time to rest and meditate over God's laws, then we will succumb to the above.

4. If we bear false witness then we fall into deception which leads us to not know right from wrong, who is the enemy and who isn't, and which "god" to follow.

5. If we don't honor our parents then we have zero respect for those who have already lived through what we have and spent night after night and day after day taking care of us. We will then have zero respect for human life.

6. Hopefully people know why murder is wrong, but if people don't know why the other commandments are wrong, i doubt they will understand why murder is wrong.

7. Coveting leads to stealing.

8. Adultery leads to degrading our bodies for sexual gratification REGARDLESS of what it does to our spouses or families.

9. Coveting leads to stealing and complete ingratitude for what one has.

10. Taking the lord's name in vain is a complete disregard for his creation which means our own lives and the earth upon which we live. It not only desecrates god for these things but destroys ANY chance we can have for salvation.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher having to explain why these laws are the only morals upon which we can perpetuate human life. But sadly, many people, who of course consider THEMSELVES intelligent, (which is the sin of pride) can't understand these basic principles. They believe in themselves and their laws. Well sorry, so far, human laws have done NOTHING but bring us pain, disease, and death.

 

[Randall McNally]

This statement is in fact extremely weak. It is made as though it is objectively true but if that is the case then it is impossible for it to be objectively true, if you admit that it is merely a subjective opinion the following arguement basically falls apart.

You cannot state that there is only subjective opinion as though it were an objective fact, to do so is deeply contradictory. On the other hand of course one who states that there are objective truths can say so without contradicting himself.

Gould's point is not that there are no objectively true statements, but that "decisions" and "opinions" are subjective by definition. "By definition" does not have to mean objectively true in order to be meaningful.