The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ygrene Imref]

It is actually the opposite. People recognise that there is something objectively wrong with killing or lying and that is why they seek to make justifications for their actions.

As a society, we recognise that we need certain moral standards to function and have peace and harmony. The repercussions of not having them are great and can create disorder and chaos. How the normative morals are decided goes back to how people measure objective morality through scientific reasoning based on human behaviour and how there are certain moral positions that support the well-being of conscious humans.

They are the basic good behaviours we all recognise no matter who we are that should be implemented if we are to have a decent society. But they are not open to subjective views, they are based on recognised objective moral values that people know about intuitively because that is how they want to be treated and that is how they should treat others. Everyone recognises that children should be protected and they do not want their child to be abused no matter what context they find themselves in. Though people don't realize it these are objective moral positions that we all know about.

Some say it is just something that humans intuitively know about that is in nature or the universe. They are reasoned and logically determined rather than open to personal views. As with anything reasoned through scientific and logic, it stands on its own. But as I mentioned before to acknowledge objective morals is to acknowledge that there is a moral lawgiver because morals imply a personal aspect and logic and scientific reasoning cannot have any personal component to it.

There are not all these conditions. There is only a rare justification or two which only come into play because there may be a risk of breaching a greater moral position. An objective moral does not operate in isolation and the person can be at risk of breaching another objective moral when upholding the first one. IE killing in self-defence to protect your, family/children. Protecting life that is precious is also morally good. But this is the only time and it does not mean that you have as you said "all these views creep in that make it OK to kill for this reason or that reason. Once again the rare justification acknowledges that there is an objective morality that needs to have a rare act of self-defence justified against it.

I agree consensus does not make a moral truth. But with subjective morality, this is how it is often done. Society will implement a law or code based on what they say was the majority view. Later it turns out that this was wrong. The problem is sometimes power and money can corrupt and they influence the people that this is the best thing to do and everyone goes along or vested interest taint the evidence or there is just lack of knowledge for what is best and it turns out wrong. But through scientific reasoning and logic will usually show that there are certain moral positions that are best for human wellbeing because it stands alone and cannot be influenced by personal opinion, and biases.

I think you will find that all people will have similar sets of morals in order to survive because there is not more than one way to survive. If you steal from each other you disrupt the group/society and this undermines peace and harmony and leads to division and revenge acts and therefore is no good for human well-being. This is the same for all people/groups. If you kill others in the group/society without justification you undermine the group/society etc and this is not conducive to human wellbeing and therefore threatens survival. It is as simple as that. Try and show me a group/society that can steal or kill without bringing negative consequences which threaten its survival.

If right and wrong come down to interpretations does not that imply that people can then explain their way out of any act good or bad because it is not good and bad. Everything is a matter of opinion, likes and dislikes. The fact you want to label certain things in the bible as good or bad implies that there must be a moral objective to measure that good or bad. Otherwise what measure of good or bad are you using, "your own opinion" which speaks nothing of things being truly good or bad. I am interested as to what you mean.

Could be any version of morality. Like you say They have power and influence over many. It is like someone ruling from afar on our behalf and never really having a say in things.

If you base morality on human opinion - even alleged human compulsion for a certain behavior - your ideals are subjective.

If morality was obiective, I couldn't have this conversation with you. You keep assuming all humanity is a unit in thought and action - and especially in morality - just because societies in which you are familiar follow a certain set of rules.

You are making the anthropological mistake of applying CULTURAL TOTEM, and FETISHISM to everyone/everything, and forcing adaptation around these totem of beliefs. Dare I say it is the "Western way."


The fact is there are many people who believe eating humans is perfect normal, for example. Do you kill animals? Because a very large group of people think it is wrong to kill an animal, or eat its flesh. And, I mean wrong on a fundamental level.

Do you wear mixed woolens? Do you think black people should be profiled? Would you kill someone to become rich? Do you believe as long as you dont hurt someone, you are a decent person (as if we know the profundity of pain we inflict on others)?

You are deluding yourself if you think morality is objective. There are many People that certainly do not share Western romanticism and ideals; making a false standard of morality based on region and people, and calling it "subjective" forcefully implies that one who does not subscribe is immoral, or amoral.

Nonsense. Anyone from any country on this planet has some serious audacity to claim anything on this planet is OBJECTIVELY MORAL. These are empires that supported the brutality and murder of other humans - and tried to mask their hauteur as regal humility.

God does not follow morality, because God isn't a petty creature that constantly needs validation of His character like humans do. Also, God doesn't die. Gods DON'T die. Humans do.

If morality is the same over the spread of humanity, then the morality we humans subscribe to is abysmal and abominable - given that this planet is always at intraspecies war. In fact, that is one reason why I think it is a joke when someone says morality is objective. We are a species who try to bomb each other into peace. And, you seriously think morality is objective - non-partial?

I am also not sure you got the magnitude of the questions I asked earlier concerning the "who and how" the election process of a morale would be conducted to be acceptable. If you have to do that, it isn't objective.

Truth is not subjective. Morality is.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is not really a different method as in the end it is the same objective morals. It is just the origins for the morals are different. Non religious people will say objective morals are a scientifically reasoned and logiical position that fosters human wellbeing and can be found in nature or some say the universe. .

No they are not the same objective morals. When you look at simple issues like Abortion, transgender restroom facilities, Gay marriage, Evolution vs Creation, 10 Commandments in public places and countless other issues, the Secular moral reasoning of “X” is completely different than the Theistic/Christian moral reasoning of “X”. And this idea of theists and atheists using different methods to conclude something objective is unreasonable; do theists and atheists use different math, measurements, or anything else objective? If morality were as objective as math and measurements, why would there need to be an atheist version and a theist version?

Care to try again? If we assume morality is objective, what method do we employ to verify “X” is true/right?

 

[Ken-1122]

That is because they have swallowed the superficial, out of context, biblically illiterate interpretations of the hyperskeptics and the falsehood that everything in the bible should be taken literally. Parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally. Abraham knew by faith and trust that God would either stop him or resurrect his son because God had already promised him that he would produce millions of descendants.

Ahh So Abraham had no intention of killing his son, he just pretended he was going to kill him to pass the test? If the God who knows everything knew Abraham was just pretending, why test?

God never commanded rape or genocide. Genocide is the wiping out of group because of WHO they are, the tribes that God commanded destroyed was because of all the evil they had DONE, this is called just punishment.

1 Samuel 15:3
God instructed Saul to kill the Amalekite; he said kill both man and woman, infant, and suckling; he was very specific with these instructions.

Numbers 31:17-18
God instructs killing the Midianites; killing the women and children, but the women who are virgins, to save for yourselves.

If God only has killed for what they had DONE, what did the breast feeding infant do? If the warriors are told to keep the virgins for themselves, what do you think they did with them, if not rape?

How is letting them live after committing capital punishable act, unfair? Sounds like mercy to me.

If I built a huge play pen for my two children, filled it with toys, and put a loaded gun in the middle of it with the toys, but told them they could play with all the toys, but do not play with the gun; would you consider me a loving and responsible parent?

Then I saw my enemy approach my two children in an effort to tempt them to play with the gun, and I do nothing.
Initially they resist my enemy’s temptation due to my instructions, and still I do nothing.
But eventually I witness my enemy cajole my two children into playing Russian Roulette with this gun, and I do nothing but watch them die. For me to take the attitude that they deserved to die because they disobeyed me would be an atrocity. Yet this is the attitude we are supposed to have towards Adam and Eve when they were tempted to eat the fruit by a much wiser Satan

Satan mistreated Job, not God. He allowed Satan to mistreat him for a greater good for Job. How is that unfair?

Satan and God had a bet going to see if Job could be tempted. In the process with God’s blessing, all of Job’s children were killed. If you see nothing wrong with this, how could you call morality objective?

How were citizens of Egypt treated unfair? Ever hear of corporate guilt? If you allow the nation that you live in to do bad things, then you are guilty too,

God sent the Angel of death to kill all the first born just to get to the King. You see nothing wrong with this? If God wanted the Israelites freed, all he had to do was put the Egyptians in a deep sleep and allow the Israelites to escape into the desert while the army slept. He could have softened the Pharaoh’s heart instead of hardening it, there were many ways he could have freed the Israelites without blood shed; only a monster would proclaim those children deserved to die

almost as much as the specific people that did the things. Look at Nazi Germany, the citizens were treated harshly because they knew what the leadership was doing yet most them condoned what the leaders were doing, so they deserved harsh treatment

Abraham Lincoln once said; Have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?
After we defeated Germany, we made the citizens our friends; and they are our friends even to this day.

If the Christian God exists then all of these things are quite possible. And there is strong evidence that He exists.

Jonah and the Whale
So a man spent 3 days in the belly of a Whale without any air supply? Forget about the fact that a whale’s throat is so small due to the small fish they eat, a human cannot pass through; but how was he supposed to breath?

Noahs Ark
So God told Noah to build an ark 500 ft long and nearly 100 feet wide? Any modern engineer will tell you it is impossible to build a vessel of this size strictly out of wood, without any steel reinforcements (steel didn’t exist back then) and have it float. Even using today’s modern pressure treated wood, this is impossible; wood is too unstable.
If the entire planet were covered with water, how did the fresh water and salt water separate themselves after the water rescinded?
So the Ark landed on a mountain in Middle East Asia? How did all those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Australia without leaving a trail?

Joshua 10:13
So during a war, as long as Joshua had his arms raised towards Heaven, the Sun refused to set allowing them to win the war? The only way this could happen is for the Earth to stop rotating. The earth rotates approx 1000 mph at the equator. Can you imagine what would happen if planet Earth went from rotating 1000 mph to a screeching halt? With 2/3 of the surface consisting of Ocean, Centrifugal force would destroy everything; yet this happened and nobody even fell down.

And btw the creation account has been confirmed in many ways when understood combined with God's other book, ie Nature. The bible taught that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and winding down energetically 3000 years before those things were confirmed by science and the big bang theory.

The creation account?
On the First day God created Day and Night. The second day he created the Firmamant, the third day he separated land from water and created plants, and on the forth day he created the Sun, Moon. And at the end of each day he said; “and the even and the morning it was the 1st day, 2nd day, etc. Problem is, you can’t have an evening or morning without the Sun because with a spherical earth, what we call evening or morning is simply when the Sun becomes visible from where ever you are on Earth. Of course the guys making this stuff up probably thought the earth was flat. But today we know better.
Now does this stuff really sound realistic to you?

 

[Ed1wolf]

So someone proclaiming “God has a purpose for everybody” caused you to go from non-believer to believer? Well that ain’t good enough here; in this conversation you need to bring more to the table than unsubstantiated claims

That combined with evidence for His existence.

 

[stevevw]

If you base morality on human opinion - even alleged human compulsion for a certain behavior - your ideals are subjective.

No becuase it isnt based on human opinion but what is best for conscious human wellbeing. This means if someone has the opinion that it is OK to abuse children then their opinion is shown to be wrong because it does not support thewellbeing of the child and there is no way you can justify the abuse as being conducive to wellbeing. As with subjective morality all opinions are accepted no matter what. So using the criteria that morals need to uphold human wellbeing counts out many views about morality and therefore is no subjective. It doesnt come down to human opinion because human wellbeing can be scientifically reasoned by assessing what supports wellbeing. Try to come up with a moral that allows abuse of children and does not affect their wellbeing.

If morality was obiective, I couldn't have this conversation with you. You keep assuming all humanity is a unit in thought and action - and especially in morality - just because societies in which you are familiar follow a certain set of rules.

You make the common mistake of thinking objective morality is the only thing in existence. Just becuase there is objective morality does not mean that there is no subjective morality as well. It is just that objective morality claims to be the absolutely true morality despite peoples views. People are not forced to follow objective morality and can reject objective morality and still have their own views.

You are making the anthropological mistake of applying CULTURAL TOTEM, and FETISHISM to everyone/everything, and forcing adaptation around these totem of beliefs. Dare I say it is the "Western way."

I cannot see what these have to do with morality.

The fact is there are many people who believe eating humans is perfect normal, for example. Do you kill animals? Because a very large group of people think it is wrong to kill an animal, or eat its flesh. And, I mean wrong on a fundamental level.

When you investigate the reasons behind these practices you will noramlly find a moral that lines up with the morals used by all cultures. For example normally the reasons behind why people do not kill and eat animals is they believe the animal is a reincarnation of a person or has a human spirit. Therefore to kill the animal is to kill the human which is in line with the moral not to kill another human which we all know is wrong. Besides I am not saying that people cannot have these different views. I am saying that despite this there are moral objective positions that are best and we all know them. We may express them in different ways according to our culture but they are basically the same.

Do you wear mixed woolens? Do you think black people should be profiled? Would you kill someone to become rich? Do you believe as long as you dont hurt someone, you are a decent person (as if we know the profundity of pain we inflict on others)?

There are basic morals we all know that can be assessed as to whether they support human wellbeing and flourishing. For example which them food or providing them with a safe and secure home. Abusing a women behind closed doors or giving them education. t does not mean there will be some situations that are harder to determine and need more thought. But the real point is not that someone may come up with a situation that may be too hard to work out but that there may be an ultimate correct position for that which can be discovered. The fact that we feel the need to have a debate about what is best implies that there is a best to find.

You are deluding yourself if you think morality is objective. There are many People that certainly do not share Western romanticism and ideals; making a false standard of morality based on region and people, and calling it "subjective" forcefully implies that one who does not subscribe is immoral, or amoral.

No one is forcing anyone into anything. There are moral truths that we all know about regardless of culture. I am not sure what romanticism has to do with morality. But whatever a cultures particular world view is that is just like a camera lens looking at the same thing. Some lenses may be tinted different colours, some may have a mist effect and others may have a magnifying affect. But the object is still the same and will not change. Put it this way I do not think that any culture would say that torturing a chiuld for fun is OK.

Nonsense. Anyone from any country on this planet has some serious audacity to claim anything on this planet is OBJECTIVELY MORAL. These are empires that supported the brutality and murder of other humans - and tried to mask their hauteur as regal humility.

It is a bit hard to tell what you are replying to and whether you are replying to me as you have not aligned your responses with the individual statemnets in my post. Nevertheless I think you may be talking about some nation that has done some bad things. Under subjective morality the fact that you want to label these acts as bad shows that you are appealing to some objective measure of bad. Otherwise how are you determining that these acts are truly and ultimately bad.

If there are no objective morals and that morals are just the opinions and views of people just like their views, likes or dislikes about icecream flavours then how can your view that vanilla is a bad flavour truly state that vanilla is bad for everyone. So how is your view that certain people have done bad things prove they have really done bad things. It is just your opinion. That is why I say that people say that there are subjective morals but as soon as they begin to say that another person is wrong or is doing something bad they are appealing to an objective measure because they are saying that the other person is absolutely wrong.

To do that you will need an objective standard to measure if they are truly doing wrong and to not just use your view or opinion. Otherwise you can only say I believe they are doing wrong in my view only. But they can say the same about you and no one is proven ultimately right or wrong.

God does not follow morality, because God isn't a petty creature that constantly needs validation of His character like humans do. Also, God doesn't die. Gods DON'T die. Humans do.

I don't follow.

If morality is the same over the spread of humanity, then the morality we humans subscribe to is abysmal and abominable - given that this planet is always at intraspecies war. In fact, that is one reason why I think it is a joke when someone says morality is objective. We are a species who try to bomb each other into peace. And, you seriously think morality is objective - non-partial

Objective emorality does not mean everyone is forced to follow the same morality. It holds a set of morals up that is said to be the best and it is up to people to whether they choose to follow them. People can still believe and hold their own moral views. As mentioned earlier some people measure objective morals by how those morals support human wellbeing. Thius can also relate to human survival because if we do not support human wellbeing then we threaten our survival. So objective morals can be things like do not steal from each other because it threatens the wellbeing of the person you steal from.

If people in a group or society steal from each other they threaten the wellbeing of that group which can lead to further problems like, distrust, insecurity and retaliation which can lead to fighting and even threaten peoples lives. This then threatens human survival. Can you tell me how stealing from each other is not objective wrong for all humans and threatens hums wellbeing and ultimately their survival as a group no maatter what culture they come from.

I am also not sure you got the magnitude of the questions I asked earlier concerning the "who and how" the election process of a morale would be conducted to be acceptable. If you have to do that, it isn't objective.

The determination of a objective moral is not contingent on peoples opinions and views. According to some it is based on what threatens human wellbeing. This is scientifically reasoned and logically deduced which means the determination for the moral is independent and stands to reason and logic. If someone disagrees that have to show how that disagreement wont affect human wellbeing. This all does not mean that people can still reject all that and still have their own subjective moral views no matter how good or bad they are.

Truth is not subjective. Morality is.

Of course not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If it were not subjective/dependent on interpretation, they would agree on more than just the essentials.

Not necessarily we are still influenced by our sinful natures but the holy spirit makes sure we at least get the essentials correct.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No becuase it isnt based on human opinion but what is best for conscious human wellbeing.

Your definition of morality is your own opinion, and thus subjective. Other people have differing opinions about what morality entails.

 

[stevevw]

Your definition of morality is your own opinion, and thus subjective. Other people have differing opinions about what morality entails.

But it is not my opinion. Can you honestly showe a women who is happy with being raped and it does not effect their wellbeing. It is a scientifically reasoned and logical position that stands on its own according to those who support this method of determining objective morals. There are some moral positions that are better for promoting human wellbeing and there are others that dont and it is not up to personal opinion because they prove themselves.

If you are basing your reply on what I said to Ygrene Imref in the last post then you either did not read it properly or you did not understand what was said. This is a atheist position for showing objective morality. The fact is certain human behaviors produce bad outcomes for human wellbeing such as someone stealing from the group. It does not matter about personal opinion becuase the facts are there that the negative outcomes are felt by those being stolen against. You cant say that someone is not negatively affected because it is a basic truth that taking someones stuff hurts the person. It is the same with raping a women hurts the womens wellbeing event if the perpetrator thinks it is OK to rape women. The assessment of whether the moral is good or bad is based on the victims wellbeing.

Can you honestly say that stealing someones stuff and raping a women is good for the wellbeing of the people who are being affected. This takes the personal views out of the equation and the judgemnet for whether the moral is good or bad is based on whether it promotes human wellbeing and flourishing. When human wellbeing is affected it leads to other problems and this has been shown through research, It can then threaten human survival. If you look at any culture, tribe, time, context if someone has their stuff taken they are not happy about it. It does not create a good situation for everyone. people begin to become suspicious and trust is lost. People get upset, divisions are created and it can lead to fighting and even killing.

The simple fact is stealing is not good for human wellbeing. It is the same for the basic morals we all know which are bad ie rape, unjustified killing, child abuse, being dishonest, not treating people kindly ect. They all lead to breaking down of the groups relationships and peace and create other problems that lead to more problems which eventually threaten survival. That is why we put laws in place to stop these things.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But it is not my opinion.

Of course it's your opinion. You can define "morality" ("principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.") in a myriad of ways, not all including the wellbeing of every individual. You can define morality as what you personally think is "right" and "wrong" based on any criteria.

For example:

What is right and good is whatever benefits me personally.
What is right and good is whatever benefits the people I care about.
What is right and good is whatever benefits my tribe.
What is right and good is whatever benefits the majority of people.

In some of those moral stances above, rape or murder could be good things.

In order for you to show that "morality" is objective, you have to show that the definition you personally use is objectively true. Which you can't do. The most you can do is show that in some societies it's intersubjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not necessarily we are still influenced by our sinful natures but the holy spirit makes sure we at least get the essentials correct.

No, if something is objectively true, it would be in spite of sin, denial, or wishful thinking. Cyanid is poisonous to mammals, is an objectively true statement. If I chose to deny this truth and consume cyanid anyway, it will still kill me. If morality were objectively true, everybody would know it.

 

[stevevw]

People like Sam Harris don’t understand what “objective” means in this case. If I disagree that the objective basis of morality is human flourishing, then how do you show that I’m wrong?

You show you are wrong by showing how human flourishing is vital for humans to function and survive. According to human biology evolution is about the survival of our species so anything that threatens that is dangerous. So if someone steals from a group member then their wellbeing and flourishing is effected. If it happens to others in the group then others become suspicious and trust is underinedbetwen people. It leads to other problems like divisons and fighting and in some cases ends in killing. The group is destablised and the problems threatens individual and group wellbeing which then threatens their survival.

This is based on the science of human behaviour just like the science of natural selection when it comes to the faster gazelle surviving the lion the more peaceful and stable groups survive the consequences of stealing. The question is can you show me a situation where someone with the opinion stealing is good for the group which can stand up to scrutiny as a good moral opinion held by someone. People can still have the view that stealing is OK but that does not mean that there are not certain moral positions that make stealing objectively wrong.

The statement “stealing is good” is equivalent to the statement “chocolate is good”. Neither is objective.

No it is different. This brings down morals to the level of pleasure, I like or dislike something. Whereas morals are more than that as they effect others. Disliking chocolate never causes anyone harm in the way stealing does. All people intuitively know that stealing and raping, for example, is wrong but they dont think that disliking chocolate is wrong. That is why all nations, cultures, tribes ecthave laws, rules, standards, codes that stealing is wrong and there are consequences. Can you name a nation, tribe, culture ect that thinks stealing is OK.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it's your opinion. You can define "morality" ("principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.") in a myriad of ways, not all including the wellbeing of every individual. You can define morality as what you personally think is "right" and "wrong" based on any criteria.

For example:

What is right and good is whatever benefits me personally.
What is right and good is whatever benefits the people I care about.
What is right and good is whatever benefits my tribe.
What is right and good is whatever benefits the majority of people.

In some of those moral stances above, rape or murder could be good things.

In order for you to show that "morality" is objective, you have to show that the definition you personally use is objectively true. Which you can't do. The most you can do is show that in some societies it's intersubjective.

I dont think you are understanding what I am saying. It is not my opinion because objective morals are assessed through scientific reasoning based on human behavior and the effects on the humans. There are certain behaviours and outcomes from those behaviors that can be scientifically determined just like gravity can be determined. So just like someones personal opinion that gravity cannot keep us safe on the planet or that gravity can make things spin in a clockwise direction can be shown to be wrong through the science of physics, moral positions can be shown to be good or bad regarding human wellbeing.

It cannot come down to personal opinion becuase the measurement of the effects are independent of opinion just like the measurement showing gravity works a certain way is independent of personal opinion.

What you value is reducible to a physical structure in your brain, such that if you changed that structure, you would change what you value, and no changes in what you value are possible without corresponding changes in your brain’s structure. But since values are in that sense empirical facts, even ascertainable scientifically (after all, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and cognitive science, are all engaged in empirically determining the objectively true fact of what certain groups and individuals value), and facts entail things about what we ought to do.
https://www.richardcarrier....

So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion -- and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history. Now, it's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
https://www.ted.com/talks/s...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Do you know what objective means?

Yes, do you?

yi: Morality is influenced by personal feelings and partiality when determining the statutes of the ideal. You are trying to get people to prove a negative: there is no objectivity in morality. It is the opposite: it is personal, and emotional. Remember your appeal to my emotion when bringing up Dahmer?

For humans that is true, but not for God. He acts according to His morally perfect character and is not influenced by anyone's emotion. He acts according to moral truth, thereby revealing to us His objective existing moral character and His requirements for us based on that character in His objectively existing propositional revelation, the Bible.

yi: I gave you a descriptive answer then. You are deluding yourself if you think there is impartiality in morality. Even more, you are deluding yourself if you think God is bound to such a human, sensate-based construct.

For God, His rulings on morality ARE impartial and completely just. Of course, humans are not always impartial though they can be guided by His impartial Word to help them get close to impartiality but we can never do it perfectly of course. BTW, how do you know this about God?

yi: Everyone has their own version of morality; there is no standard. There is just a strong consensus - which is an illusion in and of itself.

No, there is an objective moral standard based on God objectively existing moral character.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Yes, do you?


For humans that is true, but not for God. He acts according to His morally perfect character and is not influenced by anyone's emotion. He acts according to moral truth, thereby revealing to us His objective existing moral character and His requirements for us based on that character in His objectively existing propositional revelation, the Bible.


For God, His rulings on morality ARE impartial and completely just. Of course, humans are not always impartial though they can be guided by His impartial Word to help them get close to impartiality but we can never do it perfectly of course. BTW, how do you know this about God?



No, there is an objective moral standard based on God objectively existing moral character.

Good luck to you, and your emotions navigating that alignment.

To everyone else, morality is in the eye of the beholder; if you try to police morality to individuals, you will look ridiculous.

Perhaps the majority of the world forgot the responsibility of a
Pure agency God gave us. By its very etymology, morality is for entities that die.

Why do you continue to (semi) equate God's law with man's morality, or intimate that the two are similar? The two are fundamentally different, not to mention the literary differences. There is no objective morality.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Objective:

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   "historians try to be objective and impartial"
   synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
   "I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
2. 2.
   GRAMMAR
   relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

noun

1. 1.
   a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
   "the system has achieved its objective"
   synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end; More
   
   
2. 2.
   GRAMMAR
   the objective case.

Please stop bastardizing "objective" to fit a philosophical definition of a state to which God does not adhere.

Morality is not objective.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   "his views are highly subjective"
   synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
   "a subjective analysis"
2. 2.
   GRAMMAR
   relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

noun
GRAMMAR

1. 1.
   the subjective case.

Morality is subjective.

 

[stevevw]

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   "his views are highly subjective"
   synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
   "a subjective analysis"
2. 2.
   GRAMMAR
   relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

noun
GRAMMAR

1. 1.
   the subjective case.

Morality is subjective.

Yet we often here the conversation, that suicide bomber who blew up the children was bad and wrong and these people should be brought to justice. Yet if morals are truly subjective like tastes, views and personal opinions then how can the person say that the suicide bomber was truly wrong. It is only their taste, views and personal opinions that say they are wrong. The suiicide bomber may then turn to you and say I believe I am right in my moral judgemnets as the west is causing people to defile themselves and deserve death.

If you have no basis for saying that the suicide bomber, rapist, murderer, fraudster, robber, drug pusher, ect is not truly wrong in their moral based on their personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views then is not this inviting danger into our societies. The minute you begin to say the other person is wrong and you are right to say they are wrong, you are denying their right to hold their personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views no matter how horrible you think they are. This to me is crazy and in denial of how humans actually behave. We do draw the line on certain things and say to others they are absolutely wrong and this knowledge of right and wrong is intuitively in us.

There are subjective morals based on personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views but these do not say anything about whether the moral is truly good or bad. It also does not mean that there are also objective morals that we all know about. Like I say we can say there are subjective morals but when we are faced with injustice ourselves we act like there are objective morals becuase we tell others they are wrong and stand on those objective morals to justify it. Otherwise we have no right to becuase they are just our personal feelings, tastes, opinions and views.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Yet we often here the conversation, that suicide bomber who blew up the children was bad and wrong and these people should be brought to justice. Yet if morals are truly subjective like tastes, views and personal opinions then how can the person say that the suicide bomber was truly wrong. It is only their taste, views and personal opinions that say they are wrong. The suiicide bomber may then turn to you and say I believe I am right in my moral judgemnets as the west is causing people to defile themselves and deserve death.

If you have no basis for saying that the suicide bomber, rapist, murderer, fraudster, robber, drug pusher, ect is not truly wrong in their moral based on their personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views then is not this inviting danger into our societies. The minute you begin to say the other person is wrong and you are right to say they are wrong, you are denying their right to hold their personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views no matter how horrible you think they are. This to me is crazy and in denial of how humans actually behave. We do draw the line on certain things and say to others they are absolutely wrong and this knowledge of right and wrong is intuitively in us.

There are subjective morals based on personal feelings, tastes, opinions or views but these do not say anything about whether the moral is truly good or bad. It also does not mean that there are also objective morals that we all know about. Like I say we can say there are subjective morals but when we are faced with injustice ourselves we act like there are objective morals becuase we tell others they are wrong and stand on those objective morals to justify it. Otherwise we have no right to becuase they are just our personal feelings, tastes, opinions and views.

There is no morality that is inherent in the human vessel itself - and true for all humans - so much so that you could birth a child on a far away star system colony, and that human child would come up with the same morals as someone born at the same time on Terra Firma.

Not one moral virtue can stand up to this test. If it could, then it would, in fact, be objective.

Bosons and fermions are electromagnetic force field carriers. This is true for bosons or fermions from the edge of the universe and the bosons and fermions we have on Earth. That is an objective attribute of bosons and fermions. It isn't based on anything but truth.

Morality is not objective.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I dont think you are understanding what I am saying.

I understand what you are saying. I also understand you didn't actually respond to what I wrote.

Here's a typical definition of "morality":

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

Notice that it doesn't define that system. So when you keep going on about the wellbeing of all individuals, you have to realize that system is just one of countless systems that could be used and still be called "morality". None of those systems are objective, because if one was, then the definition of morality would include it in the definition. They're all subjective.

If I say "rape is morally good because it fulfills the requirements of "morally good" in my moral system", you can say it's incorrect to you because it doesn't line up with your moral system, but you can't say it's objectively incorrect, because not all moral systems line up with your preferences. I gave several examples of moral systems in my previous post. At least one of those could find rape "morally good", and would be valid to someone holding that value system.

Most people might have a negative visceral reaction to such a statement about rape, but that reaction doesn't equate to an objective fact. Like I said previously, at best it represents an intersubjective experience.

You can quote Sam Harris all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that he apparently has forgotten what "objective" means.

 

[stevevw]

There is no morality that is inherent in the human vessel itself - and true for all humans - so much so that you could birth a child on a far away star system colony, and that human child would come up with the same morals as someone born at the same time on Terra Firma.

Not one moral virtue can stand up to this test. If it could, then it would, in fact, be objective.

Bosons and fermions are electromagnetic force field carriers. This is true for bosons or fermions from the edge of the universe and the bosons and fermions we have on Earth. That is an objective attribute of bosons and fermions. It isn't based on anything but truth.

Morality is not objective.

Research shows that we are born believers. Children intuitively understand about divine concepts such as life after death and that there is some sort of creator behind what we see. This is in them before any indoctrination and in fact even as adults peoplefind it hard to resist because belief is a natural human cognition. So maybe there is also something to there being some divine law beyond humans that we all know about for right and wrong. The fact is whether you want to appeal to a God or not we all have knowledge about right and wrong. We all know it is wrong to rape a women, or to abuse a child or steal someone elses stuff.That is why most nations have laws in place to stop people doing thses sorts of things. They allagree that they are wrong and these things stand regardless of peoples opinions about believing the opposite. No country, tribe or culture will say that stealing is good or unjustified killing is OK.

Here are some objective morals I think no one can deny.

It is never OK to Kill for fun
It is never OK to abuse children for fun and
It is never OK to rape a women for fun

Can you show me where a person can be justified to do these things.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ahh So Abraham had no intention of killing his son, he just pretended he was going to kill him to pass the test? If the God who knows everything knew Abraham was just pretending, why test?

No, he intended to kill him if that is what God wanted, but he had faith that God would resurrect him so his line would not end and Gods promise would remain in effect.

ken: 1 Samuel 15:3
God instructed Saul to kill the Amalekite; he said kill both man and woman, infant, and suckling; he was very specific with these instructions.

Numbers 31:17-18
God instructs killing the Midianites; killing the women and children, but the women who are virgins, to save for yourselves.

If God only has killed for what they had DONE, what did the breast feeding infant do? If the warriors are told to keep the virgins for themselves, what do you think they did with them, if not rape?

First you have to understand the universal law of justice, we all deserve to die at birth because we are born with a sinful nature and built in rebellion against God we inherited from Adam. So the infants deserved to die because of their sinful nature. But also by taking them before they actually intentionally committed sin because they had not reached the age of accountability they would go to heaven at death and prevent even greater evil by not allowing their evil parents to raise them in evil. The adults of course were allowed to reach adulthood and having time to consider repenting of their sin but they did not and therefore their time is up. God determines when our time is up. So actually He was merciful to the adults because they didn't actually deserve to live to adulthood. As far as the captured virgins, they were betrothed non sexually (they could not have sex until marriage as commended in the Ten Commandments) to the Hebrew men for a temporary time to see if they were compatible. See Deut. 21:10-14.