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

[stevevw]

Which makes my point; which is, everything under the category of rape is not harmful. After all, both states can’t be right!

Thats right so the state that does not support the scientific findings is wrong about rape not being harmful and the one that supports the scientific results is right. So regardless of what position they take if they are not agreeing with the findings then they have been proven wrong. Just becuase they disagree does not mean they are right about rape not being harmful.People do get things wrong when it comes to laws.

Most of the non-biblical accounts of Jesus was still written by his fan club; whether it be from the Koran or gnostic gospels; but even if he was sane; there have been plenty of crooked religious leaders who were not seen as delusional. Jim Jones was seen as a good man by many of the political leaders in the USA, David Koresh was not seen as delusional; just because someone believes they are divine doesn’t mean they are going to be acting delusional.

The non biblical writings about Jesus either came from those who were out to get him or were non believers and had no reason to be biased towards trying to make him into something better than be was. Historian Tacitus wrote to Nero who was blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome and therefore if anything would be wanting to make out Jesus and his followers were deluded but he didnt. Pliny the Younger mentions how Christs followers would meet and promise to never commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word which is a testament to their good life and Christs example. He was involved in prosecuting the Christians so he was not going to stick up for Christ who the Christians followed.

Jim Jones and David Koresh were both seen as delusional in the end and thats all that counts. That is all part of their story of who they are and all the details of their strange and deluded activities was exposed for all to see. Jesus was never found to be like this from the beginning to the end. He did not take out others with some delusional belief. It is ironic that you say Jesus followers were covering up for him and lying to hide his delusion. Yet it was the followers of Koresh and Jones who exposed all the details of how deluded their leader was becuase they were the ones who had the greatest insights.

There are plenty of examples of soldiers going outside of their training and acting on their own, but as I said before, soldiers are not TRAINED to sacrifice themselves in the line of duty.

Yet there are soldiers who have been awarded medals for sacrificing their lives for others in war. How they are trained is irelevant when it comes to sacrificing their lives.

If your God has the ability to do anything, he should have the ability to forgive sin without bloodshed. The fact that he would put a system in place that requires bloodshed in order to forgive sin? Especially when he made them in a way that he knew would lead to sin? That would be like breaking a mans legs then punishing him because he cannot walk! Some things are indefensible; this is one of them.

So where do you derive your moral standard for judging that this is wrong if you support subjective morality. Are you now claiming that you support objective morality by claiming you know that what God had done was definitely wrong. Or is this just your opinion which says nothing about whether this is truly wrong. You seem to be contradicting your own position for the sake of trying to prove God to be bad which undermines your whole argument anyway.

If the Moonies religious cult were sacrificing adult humans as a part of their religious rituals, would you defend that? Or do you only defend it when your guy does it, but point a finger at everyone else who does it.

Christians don,t sacrifice people so there is no comparison. If you say that what Christ did is part of Christianity then why dont Christians practcie sacriificing humans. As I have explained and proven with ample support that Christ was one sacrifice for the good of all people just like a soldier sacrifices himself for the good of others.
The Sacrifices of War and the Sacrifice of Christ
The Sacrifices of War and the Sacrifice of Christ – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You deny a soldiers sacrifice because you do not want to admit that this happens becuase it would show that Jesus's sacrifice was the same and undermine your argument. So it shows you are willing to compromise and deny a great act of a soldier who should be honoured for the sake of winning an argument which once again undermines your argument and moral position.

 

[Ken-1122]

Thats right so the state that does not support the scientific findings is wrong about rape not being harmful and the one that supports the scientific results is right. So regardless of what position they take if they are not agreeing with the findings then they have been proven wrong. Just becuase they disagree does not mean they are right about rape not being harmful.People do get things wrong when it comes to laws.

If such scientific findings exist, point to them. I don’t think they do, I think this is just some stuff you’ve made up. If it isn’t, prove me wrong by finding the scientific research that shows this type of rape is wrong.

The non biblical writings about Jesus either came from those who were out to get him or were non believers and had no reason to be biased towards trying to make him into something better than be was. Historian Tacitus wrote to Nero who was blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome and therefore if anything would be wanting to make out Jesus and his followers were deluded but he didnt. Pliny the Younger mentions how Christs followers would meet and promise to never commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word which is a testament to their good life and Christs example. He was involved in prosecuting the Christians so he was not going to stick up for Christ who the Christians followed.

Jim Jones and David Koresh were both seen as delusional in the end and thats all that counts. That is all part of their story of who they are and all the details of their strange and deluded activities was exposed for all to see. Jesus was never found to be like this from the beginning to the end. He did not take out others with some delusional belief. It is ironic that you say Jesus followers were covering up for him and lying to hide his delusion. Yet it was the followers of Koresh and Jones who exposed all the details of how deluded their leader was becuase they were the ones who had the greatest insights.

With Jones and Koresh, they weren’t seen as delusional, they were seen as wicked because of the crimes they committed. With Jesus nobody really knows because the only thing people know about Jesus is what others claimed he said and did; there is no actual record from him.

Yet there are soldiers who have been awarded medals for sacrificing their lives for others in war. How they are trained is irelevant when it comes to sacrificing their lives.

No; how they are trained has everything to do with this conversation. My point is, if a person chooses to lay down his life for a friend, that is one thing; but for someone to put a system in place where sacrificing your life for another, the author of the system is wrong. The US military does not have a system in place for soldiers to lay down their lives for others.

So where do you derive your moral standard for judging that this is wrong if you support subjective morality.

I know the difference between right and wrong, and I have determined it is wrong.

Are you now claiming that you support objective morality by claiming you know that what God had done was definitely wrong.

No; I am claiming to support subjective morality by saying what is claimed that God did was definitely wrong.

Or is this just your opinion which says nothing about whether this is truly wrong.

There is no difference between “wrong” vs “truly wrong”. But it is my opinion that this is wrong.

You seem to be contradicting your own position for the sake of trying to prove God to be bad which undermines your whole argument anyway.

For me to say this is wrong, but disagree it is objectively wrong on the grounds of subjectivism, it does not follow that therefore I am saying its not wrong.

Christians don,t sacrifice people so there is no comparison. If you say that what Christ did is part of Christianity then why dont Christians practcie sacriificing humans.

No; I’m saying the guy who put the system in place is wrong. If we assume the Bible is correct, Christians, or Jesus didn’t decide blood shed is required for the forgiveness of sin, God did. That is what I am saying is wrong.

 

[Ed1wolf]

They don’t follow my laws either. Doesn’t mean I instituted the US Government.

Yes, but you didn't create humans in your image so that if they followed your moral laws their life would be more happy and fulfilling.

ken: Oh! So that makes it okay? My grandma used to say; “even if the entire world is doing wrong, that doesn’t excuse you”.

No, I am not saying it excuses it, but it does show how the influence of Christianity softens the heart.

ken: A simple google search shows the relationship Hitler and the Nazi party had with the Catholic church. Such pictures show Hitler praying, At church, at the Vatican, shaking hands with the Pope, various high ranking people of the Church in the Nazi salute, along with various high ranking members of the Nazi party with Catholic priests.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=pictures+of+hitler+and+the+catholic+church&fr=yfp-t-s&imgurl=http://www.papalepapale.com/develop/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hitler_at_catholic_church-580x333.jpg#id=87&iurl=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8f/e4/1d/8fe41d6dfa1c65f60ce240bbfc1f3e27.jpg&action=close

If one pictures is worth a thousand words, I figured lots of pictures might provide enough words to even convince even you of the points I made. What about you? Do you have anything to support your claim that the Nazis rejection of the Bible is what lead to the Holocaust? Or are you going to continue spittin’ out more empty claims expecting me to take your word for it.

Ken

Of course Hitler is going to appear to be nice to the RCC because almost half of his nation is Catholic, any smart politician does this even to groups he hates if he wants votes and support. While rejection of the bible was not the only thing that led to the holocaust, it was a signficant factor. If someone no longer believes that God will hold them accountable for getting rid of the jews then they are going to be more likely to engage in such a horrible act especially if they start believing that they are undermining their nation and especially start believing that most of the bible was influenced by jews whom they hate.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but you didn't create humans in your image so that if they followed your moral laws their life would be more happy and fulfilling.

Neither did your imaginary God. However if you want to believe he did, more power to ya brush; but don't expect anyone else to just take your word for it.

Of course Hitler is going to appear to be nice to the RCC because almost half of his nation is Catholic, any smart politician does this even to groups he hates if he wants votes and support. While rejection of the bible was not the only thing that led to the holocaust, it was a signficant factor.

I disagree! Because the Nazi's didn't reject the bible, they embraced it! I provided pictures as proof that they did this. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Or perhaps anything other than your word to refute anything I've said thus far?

 

[stevevw]

If such scientific findings exist, point to them. I don’t think they do, I think this is just some stuff you’ve made up. If it isn’t, prove me wrong by finding the scientific research that shows this type of rape is wrong.

There is so much scientific support that rape is harmful I dont know where to start.

Rape is a particularly harmful victimization experience in terms of negative consequences for health and post-assault functioning (Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, Saunders, & Best, 1993). In a national study, raped women had a 6.2 times higher rate of lifetime Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than non-victims of crime, with approximately one third of raped women meeting criteria.
The National Women's Study found that 30% of rape victims have had a major depressive episode, which is a three times greater rate than for non-victims of crime. Similarly, 33% of rape victims have contemplated and 13% have attempted suicide (versus 8% and 1% for non-victims of crime), equaling a 13 times increased risk of attempted suicide (Kilpatrick et al., 1992). Finally, sexual assault victims have 3 to 10 times higher rates of substance abuse than non-crime victims (Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997; Kilpatrick et al., 1992).
Rape Treatment Outcome Research: Empirical Findings and State of the Literature

Here are some of the possible harms from stautory rape or underage people haing sex with an adult and not realizing the full implications.

Statutory Rape
Misunderstandings about the meaning of the sexual act, whether it is part of a continual relationship, and what the physical and emotional consequences may be for both parties. This can have a negative impact on an individual’s self-esteem, self-worth, and/or body image.

Minors who have sex are at greater risk for experiencing mood disorders, such as depression.

Underage girls (particularly those under the age of 16) are often not fully developed physically and may experience more pain during sex.

Individuals under the age of 18 may have more difficulty obtaining birth control and STD protection (especially if they do not confide in their parents), which puts them at greater risk of pregnancy and contracting STDs.

Teens who become pregnant find it more difficult to graduate high school, which can impact the jobs they are able to obtain and their ability to be financially independent and able to care for their child. Because of this, 75% of teen mothers will rely on welfare at some point during their lives.

Minors are more emotionally vulnerable and have a greater risk of experiencing physical and/or emotional abuse in a relationship with an adult.
Statutory Rape

With Jones and Koresh, they weren’t seen as delusional, they were seen as wicked because of the crimes they committed. With Jesus nobody really knows because the only thing people know about Jesus is what others claimed he said and did; there is no actual record from him.

Mad or bad what is the difference Jesus was neither. The records from others will be the most reliable and direct testimony from some of Koresh's followers tell of his deluded behavior. He told the children to call their parents dogs and that he was their father, physically abused them for spilling milk. Girls as young as 11 were given a plastic Star of David, signifying that they had "the light" and were ready to have sex with him. He said he was the son of god and that if everyone took up arms against the law and died for him they would go to heaven. So just like the witnesses to Jesus tell of his good works the witnesses to Koresh tell of his evil and deluded ways.
Growing Up Under Koresh: Cult Children Tell of Abuses

No; how they are trained has everything to do with this conversation. My point is, if a person chooses to lay down his life for a friend, that is one thing; but for someone to put a system in place where sacrificing your life for another, the author of the system is wrong. The US military does not have a system in place for soldiers to lay down their lives for others.

Ok to save time in persuing this argument lets say that a non miltary person sacrifices their life to save someone else from a fire, or terrorist, or a raging river etc. The point is people sacrifice their lives for a greater cause all the time.

I know the difference between right and wrong, and I have determined it is wrong.

Yes you know what is right and wrong according to your own opinion under subjective morality. So what you say is wrong has no bearing on what is truly wrong. So it does not carry any weight as far as proving what God did is really wrong.

No; I am claiming to support subjective morality by saying what is claimed that God did was definitely wrong.

Yes it is definitely wrong just for you but no one else. It is not definietly wrong in any objective way. So it is not definely wrong in any overall scheme of things.

There is no difference between “wrong” vs “truly wrong”. But it is my opinion that this is wrong.

Thats a contradiction. Your opinion that it is wrong cannot be truly wrong (objectively wrong) as in it is wrong not matter what the personal opinion is of humans. So your opinion only applied to you and does not make any value judgemnet about it being wrong outside your opinion.

For me to say this is wrong, but disagree it is objectively wrong on the grounds of subjectivism, it does not follow that therefore I am saying its not wrong.

It says that it is wrong just for you but it does not say it is wrong outside of you, (for others). So you opinion does not carry any weight for others who disagree with you under subjective morality.

No; I’m saying the guy who put the system in place is wrong. If we assume the Bible is correct, Christians, or Jesus didn’t decide blood shed is required for the forgiveness of sin, God did. That is what I am saying is wrong.

Thats fair enough but under subjective morality God could say that he also believes that what he did was good and right and you cannot deny his right to have that view. You can personally say he is wrong but you cannot say he is wrong objectively because under subjective morality all opinions have equal right to be preesnted and held by the person who holds them. So in that sense you cannot know whether there is an objective good that God may have because you view only goes as far as you and not others or any possible truth about what is good.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is so much scientific support that rape is harmful I dont know where to start.

Rape is a particularly harmful victimization experience in terms of negative consequences for health and post-assault functioning (Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, Saunders, & Best, 1993). In a national study, raped women had a 6.2 times higher rate of lifetime Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than non-victims of crime, with approximately one third of raped women meeting criteria.
The National Women's Study found that 30% of rape victims have had a major depressive episode, which is a three times greater rate than for non-victims of crime. Similarly, 33% of rape victims have contemplated and 13% have attempted suicide (versus 8% and 1% for non-victims of crime), equaling a 13 times increased risk of attempted suicide (Kilpatrick et al., 1992). Finally, sexual assault victims have 3 to 10 times higher rates of substance abuse than non-crime victims (Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997; Kilpatrick et al., 1992).
Rape Treatment Outcome Research: Empirical Findings and State of the Literature

Here are some of the possible harms from stautory rape or underage people haing sex with an adult and not realizing the full implications.

Statutory Rape
Misunderstandings about the meaning of the sexual act, whether it is part of a continual relationship, and what the physical and emotional consequences may be for both parties. This can have a negative impact on an individual’s self-esteem, self-worth, and/or body image.

Minors who have sex are at greater risk for experiencing mood disorders, such as depression.

Underage girls (particularly those under the age of 16) are often not fully developed physically and may experience more pain during sex.

Individuals under the age of 18 may have more difficulty obtaining birth control and STD protection (especially if they do not confide in their parents), which puts them at greater risk of pregnancy and contracting STDs.

Teens who become pregnant find it more difficult to graduate high school, which can impact the jobs they are able to obtain and their ability to be financially independent and able to care for their child. Because of this, 75% of teen mothers will rely on welfare at some point during their lives.

Minors are more emotionally vulnerable and have a greater risk of experiencing physical and/or emotional abuse in a relationship with an adult.
Statutory Rape

Those are all examples of Cultural studies, and politicians making laws around what has been found via those studies. There is no scientific theory behind anything you've mentioned here.

Ok to save time in persuing this argument lets say that a non miltary person sacrifices their life to save someone else from a fire, or terrorist, or a raging river etc. The point is people sacrifice their lives for a greater cause all the time.

Again; my problem isn’t with the person who sacrifices his life, it’s with the person who put the system in place

Yes you know what is right and wrong according to your own opinion under subjective morality. So what you say is wrong has no bearing on what is truly wrong. So it does not carry any weight as far as proving what God did is really wrong.

Yes it is definitely wrong just for you but no one else. It is not definietly wrong in any objective way. So it is not definely wrong in any overall scheme of things.

What does that mean? And how do you know such a thing exist?

Thats a contradiction. Your opinion that it is wrong cannot be truly wrong (objectively wrong) as in it is wrong not matter what the personal opinion is of humans. So your opinion only applied to you and does not make any value judgemnet about it being wrong outside your opinion.

How do you know there is such a thing as “wrong outside of opinions”

Thats fair enough but under subjective morality God could say that he also believes that what he did was good and right and you cannot deny his right to have that view. You can personally say he is wrong but you cannot say he is wrong objectively because under subjective morality all opinions have equal right to be preesnted and held by the person who holds them. So in that sense you cannot know whether there is an objective good that God may have because you view only goes as far as you and not others or any possible truth about what is good.

I don't believe there is such a thing as objectively right, wrong, good, or bad, they are all based on opinion not fact.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Do you have anything to back this up? Or is this just more of your empty claims you like to spit out hoping someone believes you.

This has been the Christian position for 2000 years. And there is evidence that almost all human societies have similar basic morality to the Biblical God. In addition, all humans at least act as if there is an objective moral standard and judge themselves and others by it. So we are hardwired to recognize and desire an objective moral standard.

 

[Ken-1122]

This has been the Christian position for 2000 years.

Then you should have said Christian morality is based on the objectively existing character of God.

And there is evidence that almost all human societies have similar basic morality to the Biblical God.

They are also similar to the Muslim God, Hindu Gods, and all the other Gods as well.

In addition, all humans at least act as if there is an objective moral standard and judge themselves and others by it. So we are hardwired to recognize and desire an objective moral standard.

Acting as if there is an objective moral standard doesn’t mean there is one.

 

[stevevw]

Those are all examples of Cultural studies, and politicians making laws around what has been found via those studies. There is no scientific theory behind anything you've mentioned here.

Are you honestly saying that there is no scientific evidence that rape causes harm to people especially women. You actually dont even need the scientific proof, just imagine the situation, rape by definition is a forceful act of sexual assault and therefore we know that women are violated. So you are saying women are not harm or violated when raped.

The attached article used links to scientific evidence. When it says for example that women who experience rape suffer more PTSD, depression or suicide how is this not showing that they suffer harm. hese are proper controlled surveys which is one method of scientifically verifying the causes and effects of behavior. The article is from peer reviewed scientific journals and the stats noramlly come from organisations that support the rape victims using psychology, medical interventions, counselling etc. They are not making things up. It is the same method used for showing how many accidents are caused y drink driving or the causes of youth suicide etc.

Anyway as I said there are plenty of sources for showing scientific support for the harm caused by rape but it seems that you are a hard person to convince and are demanding unreal evidence that is normally not required.

This is a policy paper on rape for the European Parliament
4.2 Health consequences of sexual violence and rape
The health consequences from sexual violence and rape are well documented. The first global synthesis of health and sexual violence literature (Jewkes et al, 2002) reported the known health complications for women who have been raped as: i) sexual and reproductive health problems including unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; ii) mental health problems and health risk coping strategies; iii) physical injuries; and iv) social ostracization.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/493025/IPOL-FEMM_ET(2013)493025_EN.pdf

This is from the World Health Organisation (WHO) who make the laws for human rights.
Sexual violence has a profound impact on physical and mental health. As well as causing physical injury, it is associated with an increased risk of a range of sexual and reproductive health problems, with both immediate and long-term consequences ( 4 , 7 – 1 6 ). Its impact on mental health can be as serious as its physical impact, and may be equally long lasting ( 17–24 ). Deaths following sexual violence may be as a result of suicide, HIV infection ( 25 ) or murder – the latter occurring either during a sexual assault or subsequently, as a murder of ‘‘honour’’ ( 26 ). Sexual violence can also profoundly affect the social wellbeing of victims; individuals may be stigmatized and ostracized by their families and others as a consequence.
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap6.pdf

So as you can see all the main authorities throughout the world state that rape is harmful and they use scientific evidence to support their claims. If you follow the links they have at the end of each fact about rape you will find the scientific support.

Again; my problem isn’t with the person who sacrifices his life, it’s with the person who put the system in place

What system are you talking about.

What does that mean? And how do you know such a thing exist?

I know objective morality or moral truths exists because you keep appealing to it. When you say that God is wrong and you are right you are making an objective statemnet yourself. Therefore you are acknowledging objective morality by using it. If you truly believed in subjective morality you should be saying God has every right to hold his opinion and it may be right for him but it is my opinion or view that God is wrong. In that way you are allowing each person to have the right to hold their opinion/view and are acknowledging that you may be wrong and they may be right or visa versa becuase subjective right and wrong are arbitrary and there is no way anyone can determine with any certaintly that who is really right or wrong outside their own opinions.

So when you say God is wrong this is only your opinion and your opinion does not prove God is wrong. It does not have any independent evidence that shows you are right. It is no different to saying God is wrong for thinking chocolate ice cream is bad.

How do you know there is such a thing as “wrong outside of opinions”

Becuase people keep appealing to it and using it even if they believe in subjective morality. Whenever they say another person is wrong for stealing or doing something and their opinion is correct they are making their opinion hold correct outside their opinion. By saying another person should not do something you think is wrong and that your view is correct you are applying your opinion onto them and saying they should do what you believe is right.

I don't believe there is such a thing as objectively right, wrong, good, or bad, they are all based on opinion not fact.

OK we are back to this again. Maybe we have come full circle and cannot go any further. You have every right to believe what you do and I cannot force you to change. My position is that there are truths we can know about what moral actions do to others and by measuring those consequences through how they affect human well-being we can attach this to moral acts and therefore have some facts about how morals can be good or bad. Science does not lie and is independent of the human mind and if it shows a moral act causes harm and unhappiness to humans then that can be determined as morally bad.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you honestly saying that there is no scientific evidence that rape causes harm to people especially women.

No; you were citing cultural studies as scientific data. I am aware rape is wrong, but you keep citing science when you should not be.

What system are you talking about.

Any system that requires human sacrifice.

I know objective morality or moral truths exists because you keep appealing to it. When you say that God is wrong and you are right you are making an objective statemnet yourself.

No; I am voicing my opinion.

Therefore you are acknowledging objective morality by using it. If you truly believed in subjective morality you should be saying God has every right to hold his opinion

Suppose I don’t feel God should have every right to hold that opinion? Should I say it anyway because his opinions are outside of my control?

and it may be right for him but it is my opinion or view that God is wrong. In that way you are allowing each person to have the right to hold their opinion/view

I don’t allow anyone to hold their views, but they hold them anyway.

and are acknowledging that you may be wrong and they may be right or visa versa becuase subjective right and wrong are arbitrary and there is no way anyone can determine with any certaintly that who is really right or wrong outside their own opinions.

But if it is my opinion that I am right, and they are wrong, why do I have to acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong, if I don't believe that I am?

Becuase people keep appealing to it and using it even if they believe in subjective morality. Whenever they say another person is wrong for stealing or doing something and their opinion is correct they are making their opinion hold correct outside their opinion. By saying another person should not do something you think is wrong and that your view is correct you are applying your opinion onto them and saying they should do what you believe is right.

Just because a person uses terms that suggest morality is objective, doesn’t mean it is; it just means they are using their words incorrectly.

 

[stevevw]

No; you were citing cultural studies as scientific data. I am aware rape is wrong, but you keep citing science when you should not be.

It does really matter becuase if you read the paper you will see that when they make a statement like rape causes a certain harm they support that with a scientific paper which is not based on cultural studies. All papers have to support what they say with scientific evidence so as soon as they make a claim about rape causing a certain problem they then cite the scientific evidence.

Anyway I have included support from the Wolrd health authority that uses scientific evidence for what they say and they say rape casuesa lot of different harms similar to the article that you say is cultural. So it all supports each other in the end and is irrefutable.

Any system that requires human sacrifice.

But what are you meaning by system. It sound like some evil system that is making people do things they dont want to do.

[/quote]No; I am voicing my opinion.[/quote] OK so when you say that God is doing something horrible with sacrifices it does not mean that God is doing something wrong outside your opinion. IT is only wrong for you and no one else. So how would you know that it was really wrong in the big picture of things.

Suppose I don’t feel God should have every right to hold that opinion? Should I say it anyway because his opinions are outside of my control?

Under subjective morality you can express your opinion that God is doing something wrong. But then someone else sitting in the same room with you can disagree and say they think he is doing good. hats where it stops and your opinion about God stops inside that room and has no power or validity beyond you. In that room you have to opposing opinions and no one can be proven right. You cant prove you are more right than the other person and the other person is the same.

Thats what I mean by your opinion has no determination about you being right and the other person or God being wrong. Its just opinions that carry no weight in the overall scheme of truth because you dont believe there is a truthful answer about who is really right. The problem comes when you begin to argue with the other person and tell them they are wrong and you are right. Then you are forcing your opinion onto others and claiming you know better about who is right being you. Otherwise, why argue, why try to prove you are right and the other person is wrong.

I don’t allow anyone to hold their views, but they hold them anyway.

But if you support subjective morality then you have to allow others to hold their opinions. Subjectivity is all about allowing each person o hold a view and each view is right for that person. You may not agree but you have to allow that person to express and hold their view even if you dont like it.

But if it is my opinion that I am right, and they are wrong, why do I have to acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong, if I don't believe that I am?

Becuase under subjective morality there is no way to really tell who is right or wrong. When you argue with someone about a moral like you are doing with me you have to use some sort of moral standard as a measure to determine who is right and who is wrong. Otherwise why even argue about morals. As you said earlier the reason you argue with someone else about morals is to exchange views and if the other person has a better argument they may convince you and you may change your view. So therefore you have to always consider you may be wrong becuase of the fact you can be convinced that someone else may have a better view about the moral. My question is what are you using as the measure for what is morally right and wrong when you argue about morals.

Just because a person uses terms that suggest morality is objective, doesn’t mean it is; it just means they are using their words incorrectly.

I would suggest that we can't help but appeal to objective morality because we know deep inside us that there is some measure or standard that can be found about what is truly right and wrong. We live everyday.

 

[Ken-1122]

if you read the paper you will see that when they make a statement like rape causes a certain harm they support that with a scientific paper which is not based on cultural studies. All papers have to support what they say with scientific evidence

If that is true, you should be able to find a link somewhere where a paper claims it gets all its research from Scientific evidence as apposed to cultural or case studies. I’m sure you aren't expecting me to just take your word for it.

But what are you meaning by system. It sound like some evil system that is making people do things they dont want to do.

In this case, I’m talking about religion. Any religion where human sacrifice is a major part of it is wrong.

OK so when you say that God is doing something horrible with sacrifices it does not mean that God is doing something wrong outside your opinion. IT is only wrong for you and no one else. So how would you know that it was really wrong in the big picture of things.

My opinion is based on the big picture of things. How do you know what you call Objective morality is based on the big picture of things?

Under subjective morality you can express your opinion that God is doing something wrong. But then someone else sitting in the same room with you can disagree and say they think he is doing good.

And how would believing objective morality change any of that?

Thats where it stops and your opinion about God stops inside that room and has no power or validity beyond you. In that room you have to opposing opinions and no one can be proven right. You cant prove you are more right than the other person and the other person is the same.

And how would believing objective morality change any of that?

Thats what I mean by your opinion has no determination about you being right and the other person or God being wrong. Its just opinions that carry no weight in the overall scheme of truth because you dont believe there is a truthful answer about who is really right.

Of course I do! I base it on my opinion.

The problem comes when you begin to argue with the other person and tell them they are wrong and you are right. Then you are forcing your opinion onto others and claiming you know better about who is right being you.

And why is that a problem?

But if you support subjective morality then you have to allow others to hold their opinions. Subjectivity is all about allowing each person o hold a view and each view is right for that person. You may not agree but you have to allow that person to express and hold their view even if you dont like it.

Subjective morality doesn’t mean you have to allow others to have opinions, it means you recognize others will have their own opinions whether you like it or not. Do you believe to think morality is objective will change any of that?

Becuase under subjective morality there is no way to really tell who is right or wrong. When you argue with someone about a moral like you are doing with me you have to use some sort of moral standard as a measure to determine who is right and who is wrong. Otherwise why even argue about morals. As you said earlier the reason you argue with someone else about morals is to exchange views and if the other person has a better argument they may convince you and you may change your view. So therefore you have to always consider you may be wrong becuase of the fact you can be convinced that someone else may have a better view about the moral. My question is what are you using as the measure for what is morally right and wrong when you argue about morals.

I agree with you about moral standards. Subjective morality means the everybody bring their own moral standard that will vary from person to person.
Objective morality means the moral standard cannot come from people, or anything capable of thought, it has to come from something else non intelligent.

 

[Skreeper]

I would suggest that we can't help but appeal to objective morality because we know deep inside us that there is some measure or standard that can be found about what is truly right and wrong. We live everyday.

Correct, and that standard is well-being. When we evaluate the morality of an action we always consider whether or not it adds or subtracts from our well-being.

 

[Ken-1122]

Correct, and that standard is well-being. When we evaluate the morality of an action we always consider whether or not it adds or subtracts from our well-being.

Just as one mans trash is another mans treasure, what one calls adding to our well-being, another will insist that it subtracts from our well-being

 

[Ed1wolf]

* A talking snake

A one time historical event cannot be disproven, especially if the supernatural exists and there is evidence that it does. The snake may have been possessed by a supernatural being ie Satan, that one time and he made it appear to speak.

ken: * few people built a floating Ark 450 feet long out of wood without any steel reinforcements, something that can’t be done today

I provided evidence about the Chinese treasure ships in the middle ages.

ken: *A world wide flood

Worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at roughly the time period when it occurred plus the disruption of the earths rotation producing an ice age shortly after the time period of the flood, ie 2 mya.

ken: *All the animals of the world were released in Middle East Asia, and somehow spread through out the rest of the world without leaving a trail

Studies of the continents have shown that land bridges existed at the time of the flood so they could spread quickly throughout the world so there would be no trail left after 2 million years.

ken: *People were regularly living up to nearly 1000 years old before dying

There is scientific evidence that relatively minor tweaks to DNA such a thing is possible.

ken: 2 Million years ago? Most bible scholars agree Noah’s ark was around 4 thousand years ago.

Timeline for the Flood

Based on something the bible never says, such as adding up the ages of the ancient patriarchs. The bible never says how old the earth is or when the flood was in relationship to the earths origin.

ken: And how do you know translation is the problem instead of the biblical claims themselves?

Because no biblical claim has ever been refuted.

 

[stevevw]

If that is true, you should be able to find a link somewhere where a paper claims it gets all its research from Scientific evidence as apposed to cultural or case studies. I’m sure you aren't expecting me to just take your word for it.

The links are after every claim made throughout the paper. So in the section I first posted which you claim was about culture the first sentence which says rape is negative for health and post assault functioning it has the source they use for supporting that claim. The source is the names in the brackets which are hyperlinke to the paper they wrote about rape being harmful. ie

Rape is a particularly harmful victimization experience in terms of negative consequences for health and post-assault functioning (Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, Saunders, & Best, 1993).

This is a paper these scientists did to prove that rape is bad for health and post assult functioning.
Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Dansky BS, Saunders BE, Best CL. Prevalence of civilian trauma and PTSD in a representative sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993;61:985–991. [PubMed]

When ever the person who wrote the paper makes a claim about rape being bad they need to provide scientific evidence to back that up which comes from scientific research. You will find the links throughout the paper.

If you read the abstract from the original paper as well you will find that it is not about culture but a look at all the empirical support in all the literature about treatment for sexual assault on young and adult women in general and not from any particular culture. As part of that investigation they also look at what harm rape does so that they can discuss the treatments for those harms. The paper is very relevant for showing the harm of rape on women.

Abstract
This article reviews empirical support for treatments targeting women sexually assaulted during adolescence or adulthood. Thirty-two articles were located using data from 20 separate samples.Of the 20 samples, 12 targeted victims with chronic symptoms, three focused on the acute period post-assault, two included women with chronic and acute symptoms, and three were secondary prevention programs. The majority of studies focus on post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and/or anxiety as treatment targets.
Rape Treatment Outcome Research: Empirical Findings and State of the Literature

In this case, I’m talking about religion. Any religion where human sacrifice is a major part of it is wrong.

Christianity does not support or promote the act of sacrificing humans so therefore it is not relevant. This shows that Christs sacrifice was a one off act to save everyone from sin and death. It was a great act of love to help everyone just a person may sacrifice their life for his to save people in a house that is burning down or against some mad gunman.

My opinion is based on the big picture of things. How do you know what you call Objective morality is based on the big picture of things?

It is a figure of speech. Objective morality has to be based on the big picture of things because it takes the position that certain moral positions are true for all, the world and the universe which is beyond individual human personal opinion. Your moral opinion only applies to you, it cannot apply to others as they have their own moral opinion that applies to them and that's where it stops.

And how would believing objective morality change any of that?

Well according to objective morality there is only one truth about a moral being right or wrong so the two people in the room may still hold their personal views on morality but they will be ultimately wrong. When they argue about a moral they will use the objective moral as the guide to who is right or wrong. Under subjective morality there is no ultimate measure so there is no ultimate right or wrong.

That means in society many views about morality can be acceptable or promoted and no one can tell who is right or wrong. That opens the door for dangerous views to take control and hurt people. All they have to do is convince you that their moral position is best and that can be done with power and money. People can but the truth with a lie by making the lie look good and no one can do much about it because they have either been fooled or just don't have the money and position to change things.

And how would believing objective morality change any of that?

Because there is only one moral position for objective morality which is clear and present everyone will know when someone is being wrong or trying to fool us. There would be a clear standard to measure things by and we can use that to determine what is not good for use.

Of course I do! I base it on my opinion.

But who says you are right under subjective morality. There are 10s of 1000s of other people with different opinions who also say they are right. Who is really right. Who is right in a room with 100 people with different moral views. If you say that you believe that your moral view is truthful for all then someone else will say that their view is also truthful for all. Who is really right or is everyone right. If you argue who is right who wins, can it be determined or is it just futile in trying to find any truth about morality under subjectivity.

And why is that a problem?

It is a problem because when you do that you are claiming to know the truth about morality. You are claiming objective morality by applying your version of morality to others. What if they do the same to you. How do your determine who is right.

Subjective morality doesn’t mean you have to allow others to have opinions, it means you recognize others will have their own opinions whether you like it or not. Do you believe to think morality is objective will change any of that?

Of course you have to allow others to have their opinions under subjective morality. That is its basic tenet. If you deny them their right to have an opinion then you have totalitarianism. Even objective morality allows people to have their moral opinion. When you say you have to recognize other peoples subjective moral views this often leads to people then promoting their views as well and then being able to influence others to accept their view through law changes or equal rights.

Under objective morality there would be less opportunity because it would be more obvious that people were trying to hoodwink us and push their views onto society which could be something bad disguised as good becuase we would have a clear objective standard to use as a measure for everyone to know. So long as the objective moral was always scientifically determined as the best for our well-being then it would have our best interests in mind.

I agree with you about moral standards. Subjective morality means the everybody bring their own moral standard that will vary from person to person.
Objective morality means the moral standard cannot come from people, or anything capable of thought, it has to come from something else non intelligent.

It can still represent intelligence so long as its not humans. Science can be a good standard to use in determining what is good or bad for human well-being. Any moral act that denies or hurts human well-being or happiness can be regarded as morally bad.

 

[Skreeper]

Just as one mans trash is another mans treasure, what one calls adding to our well-being, another will insist that it subtracts from our well-being

It's an objective fact that cutting of your head is detrimental to your well-being. With well-being as our foundation we can make objective assessments about the consequences of our actions.

 

[stevevw]

Correct, and that standard is well-being. When we evaluate the morality of an action we always consider whether or not it adds or subtracts from our well-being.

I agree

 

[ToddNotTodd]

With well-being as our foundation we can make objective assessments about the consequences of our actions.

Well being for who?

 

[Ken-1122]

A one time historical event cannot be disproven, especially if the supernatural exists and there is evidence that it does. The snake may have been possessed by a supernatural being ie Satan, that one time and he made it appear to speak.

By definition, if supernatural event happened, it would no longer be supernatural event; but natural.

I provided evidence about the Chinese treasure ships in the middle ages.

They likely used steel reinforcements during that time. Noah didn't have steel

Worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at roughly the time period when it occurred plus the disruption of the earths rotation producing an ice age shortly after the time period of the flood, ie 2 mya.

There is no scientific evidence of a world wide flood. It was estimated that in order for the entire world to be covered by water up to the highest mountain, it would require 5 times the amount of water that is currently on earth. So where did all of this water go? Outter space? There isn’t enough water under ground to account for that.

Studies of the continents have shown that land bridges existed at the time of the flood so they could spread quickly throughout the world so there would be no trail left after 2 million years.

There would still be records of such animals in middle east asia

There is scientific evidence that relatively minor tweaks to DNA such a thing is possible.

That mammals could live that long? Evidence please!

Because no biblical claim has ever been refuted.

Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but plenty of biblical claims are refuted; like the world stopped rotating in order to have the Sun sit still in the sky so Joshua could win a war? Can you imagine the damage momentum would have caused if at 2000mph the rotation of the planet came to a screeching halt?
Or that the Tower of Babel resulted in the diversity of languages? Look if you want to believe that stuff, that’s fine; I ain’t trying to take that away from you. But there is plenty of evidence for most reasonable people to conclude that many of those bible claims could not have happened.