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

[Everybodyknows]

You might as well ask 'What if the number 2 came before 1'?

It does if you count down

 

[durangodawood]

Objective morality is based on God's moral law. It does not change throughout history nor does it change because fringe groups who self-identify as Christians choose to ignore it.....

That would be better called absolute morality.

Its certainly not objective. You cant show it to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In Islam God created death and life to test who is best in deeds.

Note God "tests" who is best in deed. Therefore he has a process of verification and knowing. Its a cognitive claim.

Information counts, action counts, like it or not.

Its not just peoples feelings about the issue. Piety involves staying away from harm and calamity and actually promoting this ethos, within ones group especially - and as such it promotes and preserves life.

Now that's a good move in "game theory". Where cooperation can be exploited in mixed groups, but groups of co-operators outperform groups of exploiters.

It is encouraged to:
"Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth."

Duh.



If I walk into trouble etc I'm being impious. Its not so hard to understand.

I am liking this because:

A) I'm generally quite daft and impractical...

and
B) it fits in with what I see as the most valid source of naturalistic ethics - where being has value...

yes, actually this is bound up with feelings and needs...

and has more value for the healthy and socially well adjusted....

 

[Belk]

First off, most of what you've written is nothing beyond assertions without supporting arguments. So it's difficult to respond when you don't actually put forth much of an argument. A simple syllogism at the very least would be helpful.

For instance, it sounds like you're saying something like this in the above paragraph:

P1: The being with ultimate power/authority determines morality.
P2: God possesses ultimate power/authority.
C1: Therefore, God determines morality.

But then your argument against the above consists of this: "If Lucifer was even more powerful than God, then morality would be subjective because morality would come from Lucifer and not God, and Lucifer would hold different morals"

And that's just silly. A simple working definition of God would define God as a "maximally perfect being". Meaning, there is nothing or no being greater than God. So no being can ever become more God than God already is, or else God is actually not God. One of the fundamental attributes of God is that He alone is eternal. So there cannot be now, or ever, a being more powerful than God.

Morality can only be objective if the source of morality is found outside of man. If man is the measure of morality, then it indeed is necessarily subjective because no man has more intrinsic authority over another man to determine what is morally right and wrong. Objective morals can only exist if God exists.

While I agree with your critique of the argument I have to question what definition of objective you are using? My understanding of the term does not seem to mesh with yours as I would understand God determining morality to be subjective as well.

This is so odd that I can't even work it out into an argument to respond to. It sounds like you're saying this:

P1: God has a personality.
P2: Many of Gods commands are beneficial to Himself.
C1: Therefore, morality is subjective.

I'm sure you can see how the conclusion really in no way follows from the premises. I certainly agree that God has a personality. I would need to see you support P2 though before accepting it. And then I would need to see how you actually make the connection of your conclusion to the premises, because I definitely am not seeing it.

As far as the rest goes, I think you have a fundamental ignorance when it comes to understand OT law compared to moral law.

 

[quatona]

Without God, there is no morality.

No God-given morality, that is.

 

[Strathos]

No God-given morality, that is.

No morality period, as morality can't exist in a void.

 

[durangodawood]

No morality period, as morality can't exist in a void.

Morality exists in human minds. Its recorded in the works of the wise and in religious scripture, and even in popular culture sometimes. Thats where it exists.

 

[Strathos]

Morality exists in human minds. Its recorded in the works of the wise and in religious scripture, and even in popular culture sometimes. Thats where it exists.

My point was that without God, there would be no human minds.

 

[quatona]

No morality period, as morality can't exist in a void.

So, what you actually meant to say was : "Without God there wouldn´t be anything."? Ok, witty.

 

[Everybodyknows]

My point was that without God, there would be no human minds.

It doesn't automatically follow that whatever is in the human mind is from God. Obviously if there was nothing there would be no morality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Could morality be subjective for god, and objective for humans?

 

[quatona]

Could morality be subjective for god, and objective for humans?

That proposition would require some adventurous re-definition of "objective". Wanna try?

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective morality is based on God's moral law. It does not change throughout history nor does it change because fringe groups who self-identify as Christians choose to ignore it.

Which God’s law? Your God? Somebody elses God’s law? Objectivly speaking, how does your God’s law trump someone his?

For example, stealing out of greed to increase one's wealth is objectively evil. It has always been and always will be wrong. Even if the majority of so-called "Christian" denominations (anyone Christian or not can identify as Christian) ignored it and condoned it such thefts it would still be wrong.

What constitutes stealing or greed? Stealing is taking what doesn’t belong to you, but what you call stealing, I might call taking what is rightfully mine. What you call Greed, I might call being ambitious. Those terms are subjective.

 

[Rebecca12]

Discussions of morality can be confusing as the terms objective and subjective don't really fit. I think it works better to consider morality as non-arbitrary. There are reasons why most societies consider certain things bad and certain things good, there are reasons why well being is valued. We are social creatures and we all thrive if we don't live in fear that someone might randomly murder our child or rape our mother. We thrive when we are healthy and happy.

 

[Strathos]

Discussions of morality can be confusing as the terms objective and subjective don't really fit. I think it works better to consider morality as non-arbitrary. There are reasons why most societies consider certain things bad and certain things good, there are reasons why well being is valued. We are social creatures and we all thrive if we don't live in fear that someone might randomly murder our child or rape our mother. We thrive when we are healthy and happy.

The problem arises when you have an opportunity to make yourself and your family and friends healthy and happy at the expense of other people.

 

[Ken-1122]

Discussions of morality can be confusing as the terms objective and subjective don't really fit. I think it works better to consider morality as non-arbitrary.

I disagree. When people think of moral issues, they don’t think if it is objective or subjective, they just think of right and wrong, and each person has their own slightly different version of right and wrong than the other. But when you look up the definition of subjective (influenced by personal opinion, beliefs, and taking extenuating circumstances into account) and objective (based on fact, not taking opinions, beliefs, or extenuating circumstances into account) you see what we call morality is subjective.

There are reasons why most societies consider certain things bad and certain things good, there are reasons why well being is valued.

True, but when you consider what actions are good, bad, or well being, these are subjective; they vary from person to person.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That proposition would require some adventurous re-definition of "objective". Wanna try?

Well you believe in suffering I think. Morality is basically a language game we engage with such as to help ourselves prevent this. Islamic piety involves, at least, avoiding harm and disaster. As suffering has objective existence, in that its real, and it is subject to a "lawful" understanding just as is falling and gravitation, than so does morality have objective correlates. We can know about and predict suffering.. In some sense at least???


To me morality is like a cultural glue that helps us bond to the cosmos. Imperfectly.

You might do without the terms "moral" and "good" and "evil" etc, but that doesn't make them culturally redundant for everyone. Even if people claim morality has nothing to do with suffering, they may be being unscientific.

I accept that for some meditation is "good" and for others its an "occult evil" etc, and there is logical inconsistency. In that sense, morality doesn't add up.

I also think that using the terms "good" and "evil" might trigger memory formation as "trigger terms" with emotive value - and thus help us navigate reality by forming what is basically a "well being versus suffering" map of the world. Although in general its often infused with superstitions etc, just as is folk cosmology.

Web quote:

"It does seem clear that, as a general rule, we remember emotionally charged events better than boring ones.

Latest research suggests that it is the emotions aroused, not the personal significance of the event, that makes such events easier to remember."

source : The role of emotion in memory | About memory

 

[quatona]

The problem arises when you have an opportunity to make yourself and your family and friends healthy and happy at the expense of other people.

Indeed: seeing, considering and weighing up the interests of everyone involved and affected is a pretty complex and difficult task. We have to do that countless times - with every interaction we have.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Without reading your latest post quatona, I have an idea.

"Emergent pluralism".


In ethics there are many ways of defining things and interpreting the world. Each has some degree or other of internal consistency and leads towards a "world view" and corresponding "lebenswelt" (life world). The actual world experienced is formed by categories, and category goals (ie different tasks lead to noticing different aspects of data, like "look for peace" will lead to noticing peace) etc.

It is not he same for everyone, hence there are different frames of reference because of which the apparent "raw data" we are comparing and contrasting, its an illusion of transferability. Rather there are a plurality of worlds which emerge from our psychological and philosophical dispositions.

A bit like idea of neutral monism as an undercurrent for different properties we experience, there is a "neutral" basis for experience, some kind of inaccessible undercurrent, but we don't relate to each other via it. That's the mistake, we relate via interpretations, and incommensurable paradigms so to speak.... and we imagine its the undercurrent when its actually the plurality of emergent worlds we are comparing.

So... ethics can be objective for me, and subjective to you - its likely that both are valid enough.

Use dialetheism, or trialetheism, or N-aletheism etc. There are possibly many simultaneous truths in meta - ethics, but they are simply not localised in the same individual person. Truth A and truth not A exist simultaneously, but only within the aspect of different agents' frames of reference. A bit like time passes differently, so do "good and evil" appear differently.

 

[Ken-1122]

So... ethics can be objective for me, and subjective to you - its likely that both are valid enough.

I can understand how ethics can be subjective for me, but how is it possible for ethics to be objective for you?(or anyone else) How are you defining objective/subjective in reference to morality?

Use dialetheism, or trialetheism, or N-aletheism etc. There are possibly many simultaneous truths in meta - ethics, but they are simply not localised in the same individual person. Truth A and truth not A exist simultaneously, but only within the aspect of different agents' frames of reference. A bit like time passes differently, so do "good and evil" appear differently.

Okay; here it sounds like you are describing morality as subjective; not objective. If you believe morality can be objective, how?

Ken