Subjectivity

[The Bellman]

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.

Nature can't prove the rightness of any moral laws. Nature is what IS, it's not what "should be".

Anal sex doesn't cause disease. Even if it did, this would demonstrate nothing at all about the morality of the act. According to 'nature', we should all be naked (after all, that's how we're born) - so should we be?

I will list how God's laws can be proven.

Somehow I doubt that.

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

No, we won't. I don't love god at all, I have no issue with VD, murder, stealing, power, or anything else.

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

I have no gods at all, so I'm safe.

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

No, we won't.

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.

A blanket assertion with no support whatsoever. A person can easily lie and still now right from wrong, who is the enemy, and so forth.

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.

If we don't honour our parents...we will not honour our parents. It does NOT follow that we will have zero respect for anyone else, or 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.

Umm....okay.

7. Coveting leads to stealing.

No, it doesn't.

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

No, it doesn't.

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

No, it doesn't.

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.

Taking any god's name is a complete disregard for that particular deity, perhaps. It says nothing at all aobut our regard for the world and what's on it.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher having to explain why these laws are the only morals upon which we can perpetuate human life.

If you'd done that, then I might feel sorry for you for having to feel like a kindergarten teacher. However, since you haven't done that (or anything like it), you don't get any sympathy.

But sadly, many people, who of course consider THEMSELVES intelligent, (which is the sin of pride) can't understand these basic principles.

Considering oneself intelligent is a sin? Are you serious?

They believe in themselves and their laws. Well sorry, so far, human laws have done NOTHING but bring us pain, disease, and death.

This is blatantly false.

In short, you've done nothing to support your claim. All you've done is repeat various moral commands that YOU think god has issued and claimed that violating them leads to some adverse consequences. Even if that were true (and you haven't evidenced that it is), it doesn't demonstrate either the objectivity or the correctness of those laws.

 

[NewToLife]

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.

This makes no difference to my post as he is posting his opinion and not an objectively true statement. You can never prove such an opinion to be objectively true because it states that by virtue of it being your opinion it cannot be objectively true.

You use the word definition in your post and this implies that the offered opinion is objective ( even though you try to deny this ). At best this is misleading and at worst its intellectually dishonest, ( whether this implies deceiving yourself or others is somewhat moot.).

In denying that opinions and judgements may be objective the OP renounced his own right to present his own opinion in such a fashion without being called on the obvious contradiction.

The internal contradiction in the OP is quite fatal to the arguement.

 

[Randall McNally]

This makes no difference to my post as he is posting his opinion and not an objectively true statement. You can never prove such an opinion to be objectively true because it states that by virtue of it being your opinion it cannot be objectively true.

It's not his opinion, it's a definition.

You use the word definition in your post and this implies that the offered opinion is objective ( even though you try to deny this ). At best this is misleading and at worst its intellectually dishonest, ( whether this implies deceiving yourself or others is somewhat moot.).

Definitions are arbitrary conventions. Words can't ever have 'objective' meanings, by definition (heh). The only thing that matters is whether the party or parties to which and from which a word is being communicated mutually agree with the definition. Thus, any criticism that attacks the non-objectivity of a definition fails from the outset.

In denying that opinions and judgements may be objective the OP renounced his own right to present his own opinion in such a fashion without being called on the obvious contradiction.

The internal contradiction in the OP is quite fatal to the arguement.

No, it isn't. Words and definitions are not covered by the subjective/objective dichotomy.

 

[NewToLife]

It's not his opinion, it's a definition.

Whose definition and what makes it more than an opinion?

Definitions are arbitrary conventions. Words can't ever have 'objective' meanings, by definition (heh). The only thing that matters is whether the party or parties to which and from which a word is being communicated mutually agree with the definition.

Thats the point though, I DO NOT agree that this definition you offer is accurate, its simply another opinion.

Thus, any criticism that attacks the non-objectivity of a definition fails from the outset.

In other words you are free to use a definition to make your case but I am not free to question it? I'm not playing that game, either its reasonable for me to question the definition or its unreasonable for you to base your arguement on it.

 

[Randall McNally]

Whose definition and what makes it more than an opinion?

It doesn't matter. Words are just ways to communicate concepts. If you agree with the definition D of word W, there's no point discussing whether W objectively means D - especially since there is no such type of meaning.

Thats the point though, I DO NOT agree that this definition you offer is accurate, its simply another opinion.

Then you offer a different definition. Simple.

In other words you are free to use a definition to make your case but I am not free to question it? I'm not playing that game, either its reasonable for me to question the definition or its unreasonable for you to base your arguement on it.

I'm not saying you can't question whether W means D. But you can't sh*tcan the whole enterprise of defining words by begging a logical contradiction that isn't there. And even if you could, you would bring down language entirely, not just Gould's argument.

 

[David Gould]

What the Christian worldview rejects is not the notion of human subjectivity, but of human autonomy. Obviously we cannot escape the subjectivity of our own reasoning. Christian faith, though, involves repenting of the presumption of our own autonomy and recognizing our dependence upon God's revelation for right reasoning.

The problem here, though, is that God's revelation does not give us 'right reasoning'. What it gives us are words on a page. From those words on a page, we must still reason - in other words, we must work out what the words mean and what way any rules that we derive from those words must apply.

This is shown in practice when Christians read the same passage in the Bible and come to differing conclusions regarding it. The most simple is, 'Thou shalt not murder.' From the Hebrew, the phrase literally translated is actually, 'No kill.' If we assume that the 'murder' part is the correct translation, we then have the fact that murder is 'unlawful killing'. An unlawful killing is one against the law. What law? Where are the rules for when a killing is lawful written? Are we to go by all the Jewish laws? If so, it is perfectly lawful to kill someone for being an adulterer. Or is it only lawful if the human government of the day decides it is?

Back to the praying issue, some Christians support the death penalty. Others oppose it. Both types base their ideas on the Bible and the answers God has provided to their prayers on the matter. The same with war. And so on. Each one of them has no choice but to make up their own mind on what the revelation of God actually means. It does not come with its meaning supplied.

The rejection of the notion of an objective moral code leads to philosophically unintelligible moral theories. We must presuppose an objective moral law to even speak meaningfully of morality and we must presuppose a moral lawgiver to speak meaningfully of a moral law.

Wrong. All we have to do is recognise that when I say, 'That is wrong,' what I mean by that statement is, 'I think that is wrong.' And we thus have perfectly intelligible moral theories, and can speak meaningfully of morality - if that is what you want to do.

As to a moral lawgiver being required, a moral lawgiver is unintelligible. After all, if he is the one giving the morals under what standard is he declared to be moral? Under what standard are the morals that he gives declared to be moral? It just leads into tautology.


My personal opinion happens to be that morality is meaningless. However, that conclusion has nothing to do with whether morality is 'subjective' or 'objective' or anything else.

 

[NewToLife]

I'm not saying you can't question whether W means D. But you can't sh*tcan the whole enterprise of defining words by begging a logical contradiction that isn't there. And even if you could, you would bring down language entirely, not just Gould's argument.

Strawman arguement. Saying I do not accept a specific definition is hardly to 'sh*tcan the whole enterprise of defining words by begging a logical contradiction '.

You seem to believe that words mean whatever is most favourable to your arguement and so far have failed to show in any way how the following sentence is any more than an opinion that by its own definition is subjective.

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

Simply making an arbitrary claim that something is by definition hardly constitutes a logical proof and certainly does not move this sentence above the realm of opinion. If the original statement is in fact an opinion then the arguement clearly contradicts itself. Opinion of course does not magically become fact just by the addition of the phrase by definition ! It is you that is (grossly ) misusing the language here in attempting to claim such nonsense.

 

[NewToLife]

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.

In the interests of clarity I will show why I believe that this arguement is flawed in greater detail.

The crux of the matter is in the use of the word opinion and in the OPs use of this word to include moral judgements as though this is in fact by definition true.

Here is a definition of the word opinion from hyperdictionary;

Definition: [n] the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
[n] a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
[n] a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
[n] a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
[n] the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
[n] a message expressing a belief about something; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"

You will note that morality is not mentioned in this definition and I see no reason to accept that morality is simply a matter of opinion based on it, the usage infact relies on the posters assumption that his position is the correct one. The word decision is similar in this respect.

Now lets look at the 2 sides position on the nature of morality;

Atheists generally hold that morality is subjective.

Monotheists hold that morality is absolute as defined by God. Further and here is the part that atheists fail to note, Monotheists hold that morality is also revealed by God, in some cases this is a literal case of having something 'set in stone'.

When a theist states that 'murder is wrong', he does not make any kind of subjective assessment within his own belief system. The OP holds that he does and that is his essential error.

His use of the word opinion to necessarily include morality cannot be agreed by definition and as such he is clearly stating an opinion. As he correctly points out opinion is subjective but as he fails to note this does in fact include his own opinion which he essentially claims is correct by a definition that does not actually support what he says.

If we assume that there is in fact an objective morality what path do we have to reach it but through subjectivity?

Again this arguement is quite false, theists do not actually accept this as we hold that morality is revealed by God and not determined by man. This part of the arguement is essentially a strawman although I accept that it is based on a faulty understanding rather than any attempt to mislead.

 

[an7222]

Ash, I think it's more to do with the fact that people in Africa don't seem 'real' to us. It bothers me to admit it, but it's true.

But my point wasn't really that...

My point was that an7222 seems to think there are 'objective moral codes' which exists, and if we knew everything, would know it.

The problem is, he's given us no reason to follow such a moral code, even if we found it. That was my poorly worded point.

To my way of thinking, his only recourse is to say 'But that's the thing about a moral code! We all want to follow it!'

In short, defining 'objective moral code' to mean 'that which everyone wants to follow'.

But there isn't anything like this. Everyone has different ideas about what is 'good' and what is not, and not merely because they're mistaken. We don't 'deduce' things are moral or not, we feel them. It's an experience, rather than a deduction based on preception.

No, that's not my point. Im saying that an objective morality exists, regardless of individuals wishing to follow it or not. Everybody thought the earth was flat. Later we discovered the earth was objectively round, but nobody was compeled to believe it, and still today there are some that believe the earth is flat.

 

[JohnR7]

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

The consequences are still objective. There are lots of people who are dieing of Aids in Africa and perhaps they justified themselves or did not think there was anything wrong with their immoral behaviour. But they still end up getting aids and they will still die in their sin if they do not repent and turn away from their sin and turn whole heartedly back to God.

 

[Carico]

Bellman, there are too many erroneous statements in your posts to even counter them all. Sex doesn't cause disease? In your dreams. Do you really think that just because you say something that makes it true? You are sadly out of touch with what's true and what's false by making statements that blatantly contradict the facts AND elementary principles.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Bellman, there are too many erroneous statements in your posts to even counter them all. Sex doesn't cause disease? In your dreams. Do you really think that just because you say something that makes it true? You are sadly out of touch with what's true and what's false. You only look foolish making statements that blatantly contradict the facts AND elementary principles.

Sex doesn't cause disease. Those little viri and bacteria we calll germs, on occasion, cause disease. Sex can be a transmission medium, but so is the air you're breathing.

 

[A. believer]

The problem here, though, is that God's revelation does not give us 'right reasoning'. What it gives us are words on a page. From those words on a page, we must still reason - in other words, we must work out what the words mean and what way any rules that we derive from those words must apply.

This is shown in practice when Christians read the same passage in the Bible and come to differing conclusions regarding it. The most simple is, 'Thou shalt not murder.' From the Hebrew, the phrase literally translated is actually, 'No kill.' If we assume that the 'murder' part is the correct translation, we then have the fact that murder is 'unlawful killing'. An unlawful killing is one against the law. What law? Where are the rules for when a killing is lawful written? Are we to go by all the Jewish laws? If so, it is perfectly lawful to kill someone for being an adulterer. Or is it only lawful if the human government of the day decides it is?

When I speak of God's law in this context, it isn't a reference to the Mosaic law as revealed to the nation of Israel by which they were to be governed. Rather, it's a reference to the character of God. God's law, in this sense, is that which is in conformity to the holiness of God. The Mosaic law, on the other hand, was a set of rules and regulations given by God which reflected His holy character. It was given for the purpose of governing a specific people chosen in a specific time in history for a specific purpose as part of God's redemptive plan. If you get this concept straight in your mind, it may begin to answer some of your questions.

Back to the praying issue, some Christians support the death penalty. Others oppose it. Both types base their ideas on the Bible and the answers God has provided to their prayers on the matter. The same with war. And so on. Each one of them has no choice but to make up their own mind on what the revelation of God actually means. It does not come with its meaning supplied.

Indeed, we fallible humans must fallibly interpret what God has revealed both through the conscience and through His special oral revelation handed down in the Scriptures. Again, I don't dispute the subjective aspect to the interpretation of God's revelation. Knowledge gained subjectively is not the same as knowledge gained autonomously, though. Human fallibility doesn't, necessarily, lead to utter ignorance.

Wrong. All we have to do is recognise that when I say, 'That is wrong,' what I mean by that statement is, 'I think that is wrong.' And we thus have perfectly intelligible moral theories, and can speak meaningfully of morality - if that is what you want to do.

But "wrong" presupposes a standard that transcends human opinion. What you're saying is that "that's wrong" really means "I dislike that." You're saying that "wrong" doesn't really have anything to do with the thing what we must presuppose (that "wrongness actually exists) for it to mean anything. To deny that "wrongness" actually exists is to render the concept meaningless--something you're clearly willing to do in your arguments, but no doubt, not in your life. Your willingness to do it in defense of your worldview is what Scripture calls "suppressing the truth." Your unwillingness to do it in life shows your tacit assent to what God has revealed in your conscience. That you and all of us are morally accountable agents.

As to a moral lawgiver being required, a moral lawgiver is unintelligible. After all, if he is the one giving the morals under what standard is he declared to be moral? Under what standard are the morals that he gives declared to be moral? It just leads into tautology.

Again, God's character is the moral standard. God simply is, and He is, by nature, good. The Triune God must be understood as the presuppositional foundational starting place of the Christian worldview.

My personal opinion happens to be that morality is meaningless. However, that conclusion has nothing to do with whether morality is 'subjective' or 'objective' or anything else.

Yes it does. You've (falsely) concluded that morality is meaningless, because of your prior (false) conclusion that morality is subjective.

 

[David Gould]

When I speak of God's law in this context, it isn't a reference to the Mosaic law as revealed to the nation of Israel by which they were to be governed. Rather, it's a reference to the character of God. God's law, in this sense, is that which is in conformity to the holiness of God. The Mosaic law, on the other hand, was a set of rules and regulations given by God which reflected His holy character. It was given for the purpose of governing a specific people chosen in a specific time in history for a specific purpose as part of God's redemptive plan. If you get this concept straight in your mind, it may begin to answer some of your questions.

You said that we had been given revelation. The only two revelations that I am aware of from God are: the Bible and the universe itself (which includes our conscience, presumably). From these two revelations, humans have no choice but to use their subjectivity to deduce what the charachter of God is, correct?

Being fallen, fallible, subjective humans it is at least as likely that we will get the answer wrong as right - and almost impossible to believe that any fallen, fallible, subjective human would get it 100 per cent right. And even if they did, they could not be certain, being a fallen, fallible, subjective being, after all.

Indeed, we fallible humans must fallibly interpret what God has revealed both through the conscience and through His special oral revelation handed down in the Scriptures. Again, I don't dispute the subjective aspect to the interpretation of God's revelation. Knowledge gained subjectively is not the same as knowledge gained autonomously, though. Human fallibility doesn't, necessarily, lead to utter ignorance.

It does not necessarily lead to utter ignorance. But would you admit that it is probable that every human being has a large dollop of ignorance surrounding God's will?

The thing is, my point is that subjectivity is all we have to go on. We do not have any special insight into God's revelation. All we have our our own human opinions. God's revelation does not give us a priviliged place to stand because we need to interpret it before we can stand on it.

So we are left in subjectivity, with or without God's revelation.

But "wrong" presupposes a standard that transcends human opinion. What you're saying is that "that's wrong" really means "I dislike that." You're saying that "wrong" doesn't really have anything to do with the thing what we must presuppose (that "wrongness actually exists) for it to mean anything. To deny that "wrongness" actually exists is to render the concept meaningless--something you're clearly willing to do in your arguments, but no doubt, not in your life. Your willingness to do it in defense of your worldview is what Scripture calls "suppressing the truth." Your unwillingness to do it in life shows your tacit assent to what God has revealed in your conscience. That you and all of us are morally accountable agents.

I am happy with the notion that it means, 'I dislike that', if you want to dispense with the word 'wrong'.

Does beauty exist? Or when I say, 'That is beautiful,' do I really mean, 'I like that'? If so, is a discourse on beauty meaningless?

For example, can't one discuss what people find beautiful without actually presupposing that there exists any objective standard of beauty?

Can't one discuss what people find wrong without actually presupposing that there exists any objective standard of wrong?

Now, if you are saying, 'If there is no objective standard of wrong then there is no way that anyone can say that there standard is anymore right than anyone else's,' then I would agree with you. But you still can argue for your opinion - what you like - and this is actually what moral discourse is all about.

I do not like people being ruled by dictators. Hence, I argue against it. What is the problem with that as moral discourse?

Again, God's character is the moral standard. God simply is, and He is, by nature, good. The Triune God must be understood as the presuppositional foundational starting place of the Christian worldview.

You cannot say that he is by nature good. You can only say that he has such and such a nature, and he defines that as 'good'. The only way you could say that he is by nature good is if there was some external standard to judge that by. I mention this not as a point of major concern but to point out that moral discourse is not necessarily all that clear cut for those who suggest that there is an objective moral standard.

Yes it does. You've (falsely) concluded that morality is meaningless, because of your prior (false) conclusion that morality is subjective.

No. I have concluded that if morality is objective it is meaningless. I have concluded that if morality is subjective it is meaningless.


I should also add that I do act as though morality is meaningless in my life. But I suspect that you and I have differing ideas on what the notion that morality is meaningless entails. I do not operate as if people are moral agents. I operate under the assumption that they are not moral agents. Forgiveness becomes automatic once you realise that there is nothing to forgive. I understand why people will treat me as a moral agent, and have no problems with that. And so on. As this is a fairly recent switch for me it has not been fully implemented into my activities, but thought precedes action on such matters - usually, at any rate.

 

[Randall McNally]

Strawman arguement. Saying I do not accept a specific definition is hardly to 'sh*tcan the whole enterprise of defining words by begging a logical contradiction '.

You seem to believe that words mean whatever is most favourable to your arguement and so far have failed to show in any way how the following sentence is any more than an opinion that by its own definition is subjective.



Simply making an arbitrary claim that something is by definition hardly constitutes a logical proof and certainly does not move this sentence above the realm of opinion. If the original statement is in fact an opinion then the arguement clearly contradicts itself. Opinion of course does not magically become fact just by the addition of the phrase by definition ! It is you that is (grossly ) misusing the language here in attempting to claim such nonsense.

I don't know what to tell you, man. I can't even make sense of your objection anymore. It just looks like an impenetrable morass of tautology and absurdity from here. We might as well be chasing a white rabbit down a hole.

Subjective means unique to a subject. If you object that this is mere opinion, and that definition cannot be foundational to an argument thereby, then you forfeit your own ability to make a counterargument and your position collapses on itself before you've even begun.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

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.

Well, that's just your opinion...















(It's a JOKE, folks!)

 

[NewToLife]

I don't know what to tell you, man. I can't even make sense of your objection anymore. It just looks like an impenetrable morass of tautology and absurdity from here. We might as well be chasing a white rabbit down a hole.

Which of course is why I specifically posted clarification in the post directly after this one. I note that you have not replied to that and as such find your post here disingenuous to say the least. I already admitted that I had not perhaps been clear enough in my objection, which is precisely why I clarified.

BTW the fact that you cannot follow my arguement is not of great concern to me, after having observed the sheer weakness of your own.

 

[Randall McNally]

Which of course is why I specifically posted clarification in the post directly after this one. I note that you have not replied to that and as such find your post here disingenuous to say the least. I already admitted that I had not perhaps been clear enough in my objection, which is precisely why I clarified.

BTW the fact that you cannot follow my arguement is not of great concern to me, after having observed the sheer weakness of your own.

I guess you'll have to forgive me for not seeing the value of trying to reduce language in its entirety to a self-contradiction. Not that you succeeded, mind you.

 

[seebs]

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.

Indeed, here we are.

However, consider physics.

All we have to evaluate physics is ultimately subjective, but the presumption that there is an objective physics to be studied seems to be useful anyway!

 

[A. believer]

You said that we had been given revelation. The only two revelations that I am aware of from God are: the Bible and the universe itself (which includes our conscience, presumably). From these two revelations, humans have no choice but to use their subjectivity to deduce what the charachter of God is, correct?

Being fallen, fallible, subjective humans it is at least as likely that we will get the answer wrong as right - and almost impossible to believe that any fallen, fallible, subjective human would get it 100 per cent right. And even if they did, they could not be certain, being a fallen, fallible, subjective being, after all.

Let me clarify what Scripture teaches. The purpose of God’s revelation is not that we will have an infallible intellectual understanding either of God or of a moral code of law by which we can make perfect moral choices, but that we might know God (experientially, intellectually, and willingly.)


And He has made from one *blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' (Acts 17:26-28)


The Christian assertion is certainly not that we need be, nor that we can be, “objective.” That’s a modernist notion, not a Christian one.

It does not necessarily lead to utter ignorance. But would you admit that it is probable that every human being has a large dollop of ignorance surrounding God's will?

Certainly—although some have a much larger dollop than others. The qualitative difference between individuals, though, is whether one is regenerate or unregenerate. Scripture teaches that “The fear of the Lord” is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom, and the difference between the moral ignorance of the regenerate and the moral ignorance of the unregenerate is that the former possesses “the fear of the Lord.” The moral ignorance of the unregenerate is willful—it’s a deliberate suppression of the truth of his or her own moral accountability before God and/or his or her moral failure before God. The regenerate person does not willfully suppress the knowledge of God, but because of the effects of sin, s/he still lacks some knowledge and wisdom in differing degrees. And because of the still indwelling sin, the regenerate does not always think and do in accordance with the will of God. His or her desire, though, is to do so.


I used the word “necessarily,” though, to emphasize the fact that subjective, fallible knowledge is not, by definition, lack of knowledge, as skepticism claims.

The thing is, my point is that subjectivity is all we have to go on. We do not have any special insight into God's revelation. All we have our own human opinions. God's revelation does not give us a priviliged place to stand because we need to interpret it before we can stand on it.

So we are left in subjectivity, with or without God's revelation.

Again, I agree—a subjective perspective is, by definition, the case with all people. No dispute here.

I am happy with the notion that it means, 'I dislike that', if you want to dispense with the word 'wrong'.

I don’t want to dispense with it, I want to guard its meaning.

Does beauty exist? Or when I say, 'That is beautiful,' do I really mean, 'I like that'? If so, is a discourse on beauty meaningless?

For example, can't one discuss what people find beautiful without actually presupposing that there exists any objective standard of beauty?

The concept of beauty is, indeed, robbed of meaning if, by beauty, we’re simply referring to that which appeals to us, it lacks any intrinsic quality of beauty. The beauty of all created things, whether created directly by God or indirectly by one of His creatures, is a reflection of the character of God. You may recognize actual beauty in something that I don’t, while I may recognize it in something you don’t, and therefore, we regard beauty as subjective or “in the eye of the beholder.” Your sin nature and mine might cause either of us, though, to be attracted to the corruption of sin—something objectively ugly. But actual beauty, as well as its corruption, does exist, and we are capable of recognizing them, albeit “subjectively.”

Can't one discuss what people find wrong without actually presupposing that there exists any objective standard of wrong?

Now, if you are saying, 'If there is no objective standard of wrong then there is no way that anyone can say that there standard is anymore right than anyone else's,' then I would agree with you. But you still can argue for your opinion - what you like - and this is actually what moral discourse is all about.

No, this is not genuine moral discourse, although I grant that this is what moral relativists presume moral discourse is about. But true moral discourse is the attempt to align our understanding, and consequently, our actions, with truth.

I do not like people being ruled by dictators. Hence, I argue against it. What is the problem with that as moral discourse?

For starters, your argument would have no foundation.

You cannot say that he is by nature good. You can only say that he has such and such a nature, and he defines that as 'good'. The only way you could say that he is by nature good is if there was some external standard to judge that by. I mention this not as a point of major concern but to point out that moral discourse is not necessarily all that clear cut for those who suggest that there is an objective moral standard.

Since, according to the Scriptures, the Triune God is the source of all goodness, all knowledge and all existence, one must either presuppose Him or presuppose His non-existence and the falseness of Scripture before even beginning to reason. Therefore, presupposing the inherent goodness of the Triune God as the starting place for all moral discourse is quite clear cut. That which glorifies God is good. That which would compete for His glory is evil. The ambiguity comes only from our lack of discernment which results from our fallen state.

No. I have concluded that if morality is objective it is meaningless. I have concluded that if morality is subjective it is meaningless.

But one cannot draw this conclusion unless starting with the presupposition of the non-existence of the Triune God.

I should also add that I do act as though morality is meaningless in my life. But I suspect that you and I have differing ideas on what the notion that morality is meaningless entails. I do not operate as if people are moral agents. I operate under the assumption that they are not moral agents. Forgiveness becomes automatic once you realise that there is nothing to forgive. I understand why people will treat me as a moral agent, and have no problems with that. And so on. As this is a fairly recent switch for me it has not been fully implemented into my activities, but thought precedes action on such matters - usually, at any rate.

I would say that this switch will never be fully implemented into your activities because it’s counter to the God-given knowledge you have and, as hard as you try to suppress this knowledge, you won’t fully succeed. When you conclude that people are not moral agents, though, you’re not only excusing them, but you’re also excusing yourself. By definition, you cannot hold yourself to any standard whatsoever, even one of your own making. Regardless of what you would or would not do, you’re giving yourself a blank check for whatever you have done and may yet do, whether it violates your own conscience or not. You might say that you don’t like killing people or you don’t like the idea of sleeping with your best friend’s wife or whatever, but if, in the heat of passion or whatever, you do what you “don’t like,” you’ve excused yourself from the need for repentance. An apology from you would be a hollow thing, indeed.


But the ease or lack thereof with which a Christian extends true forgiveness (which is not at all the same as excusal, which is what you’re really talking about) is in direct proportion to the humility that comes from truly recognizing our own moral depravity and the price God paid for our forgiveness so that we could be reconciled to Him. I also wouldn’t say that my ability to forgive is in any sense commensurate with my ability to intellectually grasp what true forgiveness is.